OK.....the time is officially 15:01 minutes.

took me a second to get that /doh .. it's only 3:32, my dumb brain says. ...

We have a failing economy, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and *cough here at home in the US, North Korea threatening to "weaponize their plutonium", an ailing infrastructure, an auto industry in shambles, a banking system that still hasn't been fixed, high unemployment, out of control health care costs, and, um... how about we throw in a flu pandemic for shingles, and this is what gets air time? really?

A question for all you supporters of gay marriage: one of the arguments of the pro-gay marriage side is that men and women are "interchangeable", and there are no significant differences between the sexes. If that's true, then why is it so important that another woman be on the Supreme Court--or preferentially placed anywhere else for that matter--when everyone is "the same"?

Another question for all you supporters of gay marriage. The polygamists are right behind you in line to make their marital arrangements as valid as yours. Since the specialness of one man/one woman is no longer special, how do you propose to discriminate against polygamists?

What's her future? Everybody on this planet who has seen her videos knows the answer: two trailer parks down, third one on the leftie left, when ya'll hear the babies cryin' and that's where she live. What a dumb, self absorbed, lying whore. Too bad she missed something as a child and too bad shge got those nice looking genes.

God, please, will you just make at least one good looking woman who is not a total fuck up and let me get with here and know it? Heaven might not be a dream.

STFU, stupid plastic blonde bigot-Barbie. Look at the bright side, hon. Now you are free to attend homophobic white supremacy club meetings where your "opinions" will be embraced! NOM NOM NOM

>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for all you supporters of gay marriage: one of the arguments of the pro-gay marriage side is that men and women are "interchangeable", and there are no significant differences between the sexes. If that's true, then why is it so important that another woman be on the Supreme Court--or preferentially placed anywhere else for that matter--when everyone is "the same"?
Another question for all you supporters of gay marriage. The polygamists are right behind you in line to make their marital arrangements as valid as yours. Since the specialness of one man/one woman is no longer special, how do you propose to discriminate against polygamists?



I dont support affirmative action blindly. I subscribe to the idea that people are excited about a new woman on the bench because the people presiding at that post have traditionally (or I should say almost exclusively) been white males. The idea that a Hispanic woman would give a more rounded perspective to the court is valid and it's what i believe she meant when she commented on her background giving her an advantage.

Varied perspectives keep the court honest and that's what people are celebrating. I'm sure liberals (and people in general) would feel the same way if the court were dominated by Hispanic females and a white male was up for nomination.

Also, the polygamy argument you make is a false analogy. There is a huge difference between two people getting married and one person making their own 'tribe' if you will.

I dont support affirmative action blindly. I subscribe to the idea that people are excited about a new woman on the bench because the people presiding at that post have traditionally (or I should say almost exclusively) been white males. The idea that a Hispanic woman would give a more rounded perspective to the court is valid and it's what i believe she meant when she commented on her background giving her an advantage.

I don't support affirmative action at all. Airline pilot, brain surgeon, NBA star: one has either got the skillz to do the job or not.

I would imagine being a Supreme Court Justice was a cake job up until the 1940s, when FDR compromised the intent and meaning of the Constitution, opening the door to chaos and tyranny.

Justice is supposed to be blind, and the current nominee has already made racist comments that would, were the situation reversed, have shown a male non person-of-color the door. More disturbing is the slip where she's said the job of a judge is to "make law".

But my original question hasn't been answered. If men and women are "the same", then why such excitement over any perceived differences? It must only be the racial differences if there's no difference between men and women.

Also, the polygamy argument you make is a false analogy. There is a huge difference between two people getting married and one person making their own 'tribe' with multiple partners. I dont think you could make a valid argument that having multiple partners does not have different implications for the various institutions in our society compared with the pairing of just two people.

The polygamy argument is where the argument for gay "marriage" crumbles, IMO. One cannot argue for two-person unions based on the grounds that a "plural" marriage defies tradition, for gay marriage has already shattered any notion that traditional values matter.