• 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.

MaggieD said:
We have justices on the Supreme Court for their learned opinions. We agree with many. We disagree with many. His is one opinion. He is entitled to it. I wouldn't agree with him if he said gay marriage was unconstitutional, if that is what he thought But we don't even know that. There's a reason we don't appoint 30-year-olds to SCOTUS, my friend
Click to expand...

Playing the victim, especially by proxy, is cowardly, Maggie. Nobody's denying Scalia the right to hold whatever opinion he wishes. It's impossible to do so. We simply refuse to accept or acknowledge his opinion as legitimate; further, we regard that opinion as a reflection of a piggish personality. That ought to be acceptable to you, live-and-let-live as you sometimes want to be seen to be.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Anagram said:
Yes, this seems to be pretty much his actual argument. He's using the laws against murder, which people generally have moral feelings against, as an argument for laws against homosexuality. I agree that moral feelings should not be used as a reason for legislation. Laws against murder serve to protect social order, and I do not believe that laws against homosexuality protect social order, and therefore shouldn't be legislated.
Click to expand...

What you say makes sense. So why did Scalia use this invidious comparison?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

MaggieD said:
WTF did he say that leads you to that absolutely ridiculous parallel?
Click to expand...

His history on LGBT rights. Obviously.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Moot said:
If Scalia is an orginalist then what do moral feelings have to do with the constitution or statutory law? Is the court in the habit of ruling on feelings? No, I think Scalia meant exactly what he said, that he thinks homosexuality is immoral and he deliberately made the comparison to murder to make his point known.
Click to expand...

Well the source in the OP is vague and unclear, but it seems to me he was trying to use the laws against murder that we have to justify laws against homosexuality. By making the argument that the laws against murder are based on moral feelings against it, then the laws against homosexuality would be similarly justified. I disagree with the conclusion, as laws against murder are to serve social order, whereas laws against homosexuality or same-sex marriage wouldn't.

Now he is making the argument that homosexuality and murder are both immoral actions, but he is not comparing them any more than if he said that a traffic violation and murder are both illegal.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

head of joaquin said:
What you say makes sense. So why did Scalia use this invidious comparison?
Click to expand...

He was trying to make his argument as strong as possible. He wanted to use an example that everyone agrees is immoral in order to try to make the argument that we have laws based on moral feelings. I disagree with his conclusion that laws against murder are based on moral feelings rather than social order, but he wasn't comparing the level of immorality of homosexuality to that of murder.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Anagram said:
Well the source in the OP is vague and unclear, but it seems to me he was trying to use the laws against murder that we have to justify laws against homosexuality. By making the argument that the laws against murder are based on moral feelings against it, then the laws against homosexuality would be similarly justified. I disagree with the conclusion, as laws against murder are to serve social order, whereas laws against homosexuality or same-sex marriage wouldn't.

Now he is making the argument that homosexuality and murder are both immoral actions, but he is not comparing them any more than if he said that a traffic violation and murder are both illegal.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that Scalia has already judged homosexuality to be immoral and is using immorality of murder as his justification? I just don't get the comparison because the founders knew slavery was immoral and went to great lengths to make sure it was not mentioned by name in the constitution and yet it was legal at the time of the ratification. So why didn't he use slavery as a comparison, instead? As an orginalist, is Scalia for or against slavery?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Moot said:
So are you saying that Scalia has already judged homosexuality to be immoral and is using immorality of murder as his justification?
Click to expand...

He seems to be using the existence of laws against murder to prove that there are laws based on moral feelings. Then he is using the existence of those laws to justify laws against homosexuality. Or at least that's my guess at what he's doing, as the source in the OP isn't very clear.

As an orginalist, is Scalia for or against slavery?
Click to expand...

He is probably against it personally, due to its immorality, and legally due the fact it has now been nullified in the constitution by amendments. I don't really see what this has to do with the statement in the OP though.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Anagram said:
He seems to be using the existence of laws against murder to prove that there are laws based on moral feelings. Then he is using the existence of those laws to justify laws against homosexuality. Or at least that's my guess at what he's doing, as the source in the OP isn't very clear.
Click to expand...

Is the problem that the source isn't clear, or that this is a typical muddled utterance out of Scalia?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Einzige said:
Is the problem that the source isn't clear, or that this is a typical muddled utterance out of Scalia?
Click to expand...

I don't know. There isn't quite enough in the source for me to be completely sure of what Scalia's point is precisely. I don't know if that is because the source leaves something out, or if Scalia doesn't offer anything more.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Anagram said:
He was trying to make his argument as strong as possible. He wanted to use an example that everyone agrees is immoral in order to try to make the argument that we have laws based on moral feelings. I disagree with his conclusion that laws against murder are based on moral feelings rather than social order, but he wasn't comparing the level of immorality of homosexuality to that of murder.
Click to expand...
I agree with the bolded part above and thought you made an excellent point that murder violates the social order as opposed to being immoral which I tend to equate with religion rather legaleze.


Anagram said:
I don't know. There isn't quite enough in the source for me to be completely sure of what Scalia's point is precisely. I don't know if that is because the source leaves something out, or if Scalia doesn't offer anything more.
Click to expand...
Somehow Scalia doesn't strike me as the vague type. You said yourself he was trying to make the strongest point possible and equating the morality of homosexuality with murder certainly had that effect. I think he meant what he said, the immorality of homosexuality equates to murder in his opinion and I see no need to sugar coat or excuse it. He said it, so let him take responsibility for it and God help us all that he should live much longer.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

The quote is actually a perfect example of how Scalia rules, he confuses his "moral feelings" with the law. A person has the right to moral feelings against homosexuality, just as I have the right to have moral feelings against said person. However, one cannot justify a law without demonstrating a legitimate state interest. There is no rational argument for how the state benefits from persecuting homosexuals.

Scalia's argument is so obnoxious because it provides no useful legal test. Every single action you can think is considered immoral by somebody, you could use his argument to justify literally any kind of law.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

specklebang said:
Equating homosexuality with evil or immorality is vile. I happen to be a huge advocate of morality but not the type of morality Scalia espouses. Sorry, I'll go with Head Of Joaquim on this one even though I rarely agree with him on other topics.:)
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is evil, and it is immoral. It seems the only “morality” that you advocate is one in which nobody is allowed to recognize any immorality for what it truly is. That is no morality at all.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Bob Blaylock said:
Homosexuality is evil, and it is immoral. It seems the only “morality” that you advocate is one in which nobody is allowed to recognize any immorality for what it truly is. That is no morality at all.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, your bigotry is immoral. Irrational hatred for an something that causes no harm is wrong. However, that is not the basis for how you create laws. While the country would be a better place without people who hate gays, that does not justify sticking people like in jail. While your kind of attitude is immoral, it doesn't lead to the kind of explicit and direct harm that meets the standard for government delivered punishment.

I don't really expect you to admit that homosexuality is wrong. I do expect you understand that your viewpoint of homosexuality is not sufficient basis for the law. Keep in mind that one day in the future my argument will be the only reason that the gay-friendly voting populace doesn't chuck homophobes in jail.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

rathi said:
On the contrary, your bigotry is immoral. Irrational hatred for an something that causes no harm is wrong. However, that is not the basis for how you create laws. While the country would be a better place without people who hate gays, that does not justify sticking people like in jail. While your kind of attitude is immoral, it doesn't lead to the kind of explicit and direct harm that meets the standard for government delivered punishment.

I don't really expect you to admit that homosexuality is wrong. I do expect you understand that your viewpoint of homosexuality is not sufficient basis for the law. Keep in mind that one day in the future my argument will be the only reason that the gay-friendly voting populace doesn't chuck homophobes in jail.
Click to expand...

do you feel the same way about laws that are aimed at the wealthy or gun owners.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

rathi said:
On the contrary, your bigotry is immoral. Irrational hatred for an something that causes no harm is wrong. However, that is not the basis for how you create laws. While the country would be a better place without people who hate gays, that does not justify sticking people like in jail. While your kind of attitude is immoral, it doesn't lead to the kind of explicit and direct harm that meets the standard for government delivered punishment.

I don't really expect you to admit that homosexuality is wrong. I do expect you understand that your viewpoint of homosexuality is not sufficient basis for the law. Keep in mind that one day in the future my argument will be the only reason that the gay-friendly voting populace doesn't chuck homophobes in jail.
Click to expand...

You are not allowed to say that he is a bigot for his beliefs, without making yourself a bigot, since you are intolerant of his opinion. Its that whole "point a finger a someone, three more point at you" thing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Einzige said:
Playing the victim, especially by proxy, is cowardly, Maggie. Nobody's denying Scalia the right to hold whatever opinion he wishes. It's impossible to do so. We simply refuse to accept or acknowledge his opinion as legitimate; further, we regard that opinion as a reflection of a piggish personality. That ought to be acceptable to you, live-and-let-live as you sometimes want to be seen to be.
Click to expand...

Playing the victim by proxy. I wish I could read one of your posts and actually understand the whole thing, Einzige. Being an elitist doesn't mean you have to communicate in code. What opinion of his is it that you see as a reflection of his piggish personality?? Quote it here!!

I find it comical that the very people who have asked for tolerance for sooo long would fail to show that same tolerance to a 76-year-old man raised in a far, far different world. Comical. Yes, I do.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Samhain said:
You are not allowed to say that he is a bigot for his beliefs, without making yourself a bigot, since you are intolerant of his opinion. Its that whole "point a finger a someone, three more point at you" thing.
Click to expand...

Interesting how many side with "state's rights" on the legalization of marijuana (a preference issue), but against those "state's rights" when it comes to the definition of a marriage contract (unless they like SSM). Had no state passed SSM this "movement" would likely not exist. It is also quite odd that two constitutional amendments were involved in establishing federal control of alcohol (a recreational drug) yet none was required to nationally ban many other recreational drugs. I agree that some of Scalia's opinions/analogies are way off the mark, but also agree that many of his opinions are quite valid interpretations of the constitution.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

MaggieD said:
I find it comical that the very people who have asked for tolerance for sooo long would fail to show that same tolerance to a 76-year-old man raised in a far, far different world. Comical. Yes, I do.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people his age who don't think like he does. Scalia is an educated, intelligent man who has no doubt been exposed to gay people on a personal level many times in his life. There is really no excuse for his bigotry.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Let there be no doubt, Scalia is a bigot. I wonder what Matthew Sheppard's mother must think of Scalia's comparison.




"....In 1996, Scalia dissented when the court struck down an anti-gay initiative from Colorado. There, he made a reference to murder: "The court's opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of 'animus' or 'animosity' toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as un-American. Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct."

Scalia dissented again in 2003 when the court struck down a Texas law that made sex between gays a crime. The opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy overturned a 1986 ruling in Bowers vs. Hardwick that had upheld state sodomy laws.

"The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are 'immoral and unacceptable,' … the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity," Scalia wrote in dissent. "Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The court today reaches the opposite conclusion.... This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."....read....
Justice Antonin Scalia defends writings on anti-gay laws - latimes.com



Yesterday it was the "slippery slope fallacy" (forced to eat broccolli) and today it's 'reduction to the absurd'" (homosexuality is murder)

So thats how it is, Scalia uses fallacious reasoning to justify his not so brilliant opinions on. What a bork er uh I mean dork.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Bob Blaylock said:
Homosexuality is evil, and it is immoral.
Click to expand...

Evil????? Really? Please explain how gay is evil.

As for your belief that's it's immoral. That's fine. Some believe drinking alcohol and even dancing is immoral. That's a personal choice.

The problem comes when you decide you want to legislate and create laws and benefits that exclude others based on your personal beliefs.

Do you believe it's immoral for a black man to love a white woman? Should those couples NOT be socially accepted? is that kind of relationship evil?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Bob Blaylock said:
Homosexuality is evil, and it is immoral. It seems the only “morality” that you advocate is one in which nobody is allowed to recognize any immorality for what it truly is. That is no morality at all.
Click to expand...
Evil is confusing morals with moralizing.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Moot said:
"The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are 'immoral and unacceptable,' … the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity," Scalia wrote in dissent. "Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The court today reaches the opposite conclusion.... This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."....read....
Justice Antonin Scalia defends writings on anti-gay laws - latimes.com
Click to expand...
In summary: Its ok to make laws against immoral things, until you change your mind.


Take his mildest example: adultery. The country used to have numerous laws concerning adultery, but now, not so much. Does that make adultery no longer immoral? Its still immoral in my book, and each and every one of us is entitled to their opinion on it.

However, if you take that case as judicial precedent, then he is correct, you cannot make laws based on morality, since its up to the individual to justify that opinion.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Samhain said:
However, if you take that case as judicial precedent, then he is correct, you cannot make laws based on morality, since its up to the individual to justify that opinion.
Click to expand...

The world legislates "its idea of morality" all the time: murder, robbery, perjury, etc., etc. But morality is a fluid judgment, not a constant. Some don't get that.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

MaggieD said:
The world legislates "its idea of morality" all the time: murder, robbery, perjury, etc., etc. But morality is a fluid judgment, not a constant. Some don't get that.
Click to expand...


Isn't there a difference between a "universal morality" (murder) and a "personal morality" like sexual attraction and even eating meat on Friday?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom