• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS: Scalia on the defensive over gay rights

Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

This is simply false and misses the point.

The rule against perpetuities in wills isn't based on morality; it's just a practical consideration.

More to the point, for private morality to become public policy (i.e., law) there must be more than moral feelings -- there must be an interest to protect, or harm to be averted.

We don't pass laws against murderers because we don't like them (though we don't) but because we want to prevent and punish violence.

For those who want to discriminate against gays to fulfill their own (insecure) private morality, my answer is: grow up. Homosexuality causes no harm to third parties and discriminating against gays harms them and harms society by not allowing people to fully participate and contribute in our society.

And no, morality isn't objective. It makes no sense to claim that.

Law, like logic in a lot of ways is the procvess of moving an item that is subject to consideration on the face, to objective truth. The law, especially common law, in theory, is providing a framework to establish the objectivity of any given item. It takes the subjective and turns it into the objective. And yes, assumption, suppositions are all made along the way to help it get there. Morality is most certainly subjective, but it ceases to be, when properly considered.


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom