• 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.

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. Whether he rules on his feeeeeelings or the intent of the constitution remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

It does not. You are poorly informed. He is going to vote to overturn Vaughn in Perry. In Windsor, he is going to have to do some intellectual gymnastics to support DOMA. I am guessing he will figure it out as he lacks any principle. The man is scum.
 
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...

Fail. He stated quite clearly that he does not support state action to prohibit the posters repugnant and immoral views.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

BayToBay said:
It does not. You are poorly informed. He is going to vote to overturn Vaughn in Perry. In Windsor, he is going to have to do some intellectual gymnastics to support DOMA. I am guessing he will figure it out as he lacks any principle. The man is scum.
Click to expand...
MmmmmK, whatever.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

digsbe said:
Either way, I have no problem with what Scalia said. People should be allowed to hold and voice their opinion on homosexuality whether they think it's fine or if they believe it is immoral.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with people voicing their own opinions about anything. The problem comes when they put their "opinions" into action. The reasons given to keep gay marriage illegal are pretty weak.

The favorite reason some give is "Think of the children". Well, gay marriage being illegal does not mean gay couples can't adopt or have children of their own through invetro. That one is lame.

Then there is the "Well if the state makes it legal, that means the state says it is moral". No, watching pornography while rubbing green jello all over your body in the comfort of your own home is LEGAL, however, to some it STILL isn't moral.

Legal does not equate to moral.

The simple facts are that the reasons given to keep gay marriage illegal are weak and it is showing.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

BayToBay said:
It does not. You are poorly informed. He is going to vote to overturn Vaughn in Perry. In Windsor, he is going to have to do some intellectual gymnastics to support DOMA. I am guessing he will figure it out as he lacks any principle. The man is scum.
Click to expand...

Not really on the DOMA thing. Liberals tend to over construe Sect 1 of the 14th Amendment in comparison to strict constructionists. I am not sure why all this Scalia speculation is going on other than to just bash conservatives by proxy--he is not going to support gay marriage and won't be a swing vote.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

digsbe said:
We all define harm and interest differently, there are just many things most people will universally agree on like theft and murder.

Either way, I have no problem with what Scalia said. People should be allowed to hold and voice their opinion on homosexuality whether they think it's fine or if they believe it is immoral.
Click to expand...


No, we don't all define harm differently. The only cogent definition in this context is harm to third parties. Murderers harm other people. Gay marriage does not. Putative indirect "harm" to marriage or to morals doesn't count since it's subjective and in dispute and pretty much the result of prejudice, unsupported by any facts.

If you think otherwise, let's see you make the case that they do. But of course you can't. And indeed that's why so many anti-gay laws have been struck down. The arguments for them have been shown to be totally nonfactual or irrational.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

specklebang said:
I contend they are not similar. Every contract requires the free-will consent of all affected parties.

2 homosexuals have agreed to have an intimate relationship. All parties are notified and in agreement. This is ethical and moral.

Adultery involves 3 parties. One party is defrauded when the other 2 parties engage in conduct that is concealed and for which consent has not been obtained.

If a married couple agreed to an open relationship, then it would not be adultery. Therefore, there is no comparison. As for your personal opinion, I can respect it but completely disagree. What if I thought that gun ownership was immoral? Would that make it immoral? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

So, what the state should keep a record of everyone that has agreed to an ope marriage so that they know who to arrest? Can you imagine the sort of entrapment that would take place?

The state has no interest in protecting the feelings of citizens. The interest in marriage is about property.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Henrin said:
You are mistaking the selling point and reasonings with the origins. The origin of laws on all killing is based on morality. No matter if its dealing with if the death occurred at the barrel of a gun or the will of the woman(late term). In both cases it comes down to morality first and practicality and benefits second.
Click to expand...

If it were about morality then vigilante justice would be commonplace. It is about preserving social order.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

specklebang said:
I contend they are not similar. Every contract requires the free-will consent of all affected parties.

2 homosexuals have agreed to have an intimate relationship. All parties are notified and in agreement. This is ethical and moral.

Adultery involves 3 parties. One party is defrauded when the other 2 parties engage in conduct that is concealed and for which consent has not been obtained.

If a married couple agreed to an open relationship, then it would not be adultery. Therefore, there is no comparison. As for your personal opinion, I can respect it but completely disagree. What if I thought that gun ownership was immoral? Would that make it immoral? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Also, at best, your argument concerning contracts would justify some form of tort not criminal laws.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Fisher said:
Not really on the DOMA thing. Liberals tend to over construe Sect 1 of the 14th Amendment in comparison to strict constructionists. I am not sure why all this Scalia speculation is going on other than to just bash conservatives by proxy--he is not going to support gay marriage and won't be a swing vote.
Click to expand...

Have you read his opinion in Lawrence? He is a slug and has recently implied that he wishes to overturn the ruling. I bash him because he is morally repugnant and without principle.

The difficulty on DOMA will surround his pretense of supporting states rights. The law is clearly unconstitutional without any consideration of the 14th.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Moot said:
MmmmmK, whatever.
Click to expand...

I would encourage you to read the Lawrence opinion and see if you think there is any doubt on how he will rule. He votes based on his whims and does not even really seem to care about providing a legal standard that can be followed. In a way, that's a good thing as it will ensure he has no lasting legacy.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

BayToBay said:
Have you read his opinion in Lawrence? He is a slug and has recently implied that he wishes to overturn the ruling. I bash him because he is morally repugnant and without principle.

The difficulty on DOMA will surround his pretense of supporting states rights. The law is clearly unconstitutional without any consideration of the 14th.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is un-Constitutional, but I wouldn't bet on Scalia of all the Justices supporting you in that. Perhaps you have not read his dissent in Romer v. Evans. If I were to guess, enumerated powers might be the only argument he would possibly be open to, but the SCOTUS usually does the old "Well if the Constitution doesn't say the federal government cannot act, then they can act" slight of the federalist hand when faced with enumerated powers.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

You have misunderstood my message. Let me further explain.

I'm not discussing "legalities", I'm discussing "moralities". Please refer to Bob Blaylocks earlier posts and you'll understand what evoked my statement. This has nothing to do with any enforcement or laws.

I'm also not using the term "contract" as a legal format. Almost everything we do as humans carries with it an implication of "contract". As a basic example, we all have a "contract" not to cross the painted line in the middle of the road. In marriage, we have an element of this type of "contract". That's why we conduct ourselves in a particular manner and we have "contracted" not to be sexual with others. I do not advocate honoring these contracts as a legal issue, just as a human issue. The summation of my point is that homosexuality is moral, adultery is not. This in response to Mr. Blatlocks statement that homosexuality is inherently immoral.

I hope this clears up things. I'm always happy to answer questions regarding my pontifications:)



BayToBay said:
So, what the state should keep a record of everyone that has agreed to an ope marriage so that they know who to arrest? Can you imagine the sort of entrapment that would take place?

The state has no interest in protecting the feelings of citizens. The interest in marriage is about property.
Click to expand...

BayToBay said:
Also, at best, your argument concerning contracts would justify some form of tort not criminal laws.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

specklebang said:
You have misunderstood my message. Let me further explain.

I'm not discussing "legalities", I'm discussing "moralities". Please refer to Bob Blaylocks earlier posts and you'll understand what evoked my statement. This has nothing to do with any enforcement or laws.

I'm also not using the term "contract" as a legal format. Almost everything we do as humans carries with it an implication of "contract". As a basic example, we all have a "contract" not to cross the painted line in the middle of the road. In marriage, we have an element of this type of "contract". That's why we conduct ourselves in a particular manner and we have "contracted" not to be sexual with others. I do not advocate honoring these contracts as a legal issue, just as a human issue. The summation of my point is that homosexuality is moral, adultery is not. This in response to Mr. Blatlocks statement that homosexuality is inherently immoral.

I hope this clears up things. I'm always happy to answer questions regarding my pontifications:)
Click to expand...

Okay, I would say the morality depends on the agreement but agree, in general.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Top Cat said:
I'm more upset that he can "ethically" profit from a book. The Supremes should just STFU and do their job.
Click to expand...

Or have meetings with the Koch brothers. This guy and two other righties on the bench are as dirty as any polotician in the country. They make Blago look clean.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

BayToBay said:
I would encourage you to read the Lawrence opinion and see if you think there is any doubt on how he will rule. He votes based on his whims and does not even really seem to care about providing a legal standard that can be followed. In a way, that's a good thing as it will ensure he has no lasting legacy.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that......

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-homosexuality-murder-17.html#post1061240765

Next time, you might want to inform yourself before making personal attacks.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

head of joaquin said:
That's why we must get rid of Scalia and we must prevent bigotted people from imposing their biases on public policy by discriminating against people based on gender and sexual orientation.

It's evil to discriminate against people who aren't harming others by their conduct. It harms both the minority that is attacked and the rest of society, which doesn't benefit from the full participation all members.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the immorality which you defend is harmless.

I think it is obvious that society is suffering a great many ills, as a result of sexual immorality, and the destruction of the family as the basis for society. High rates of illegitimacy, high rates of divorce, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, drug abuse, gang crime — all of it is part of the very same sickness. This sickness has severe consequences, not only for those individuals who choose to participate in it, but for society as a whole. When you defend any part of this, you are defending all of it.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Bob Blaylock said:
When you defend any part of this, you are defending all of it.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe this? Why is it impossible for me, or society as a whole to accept say premarital sex or homosexuality, while completely disavowing drug use and gang crime?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

I´m a little bit horrified for what I´m reading here.

Everyone should first look upon himself, then he should proof if he harm others and if he don´t harm others with what he´s doing, then it´s right in what he´s doing.

I can´t determine, that gay people harm the society in what they are doing with their preferred orientation.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Your Star said:
This asshole is a plague on the court, he should have never been appointed.



SCOTUS: Scalia on the defensive over gay rights - First Read
Click to expand...


Actually, he compared the criminality of murder with that of the criminality of homosexuality, in that all criminality is derived from the legislature, big or small, and often on moral grounds, more often based on zeitgeist than logic.

I wonder if those screaming about the statement, which there is absolutely nothing wrong with, have equal acrimony towards people who think being able to put two male or female names on a marriage licence is tantamount to giving blacks or women the right to vote.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Bob Blaylock said:
I disagree that the immorality which you defend is harmless.

I think it is obvious that society is suffering a great many ills, as a result of sexual immorality, and the destruction of the family as the basis for society. High rates of illegitimacy, high rates of divorce, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, drug abuse, gang crime — all of it is part of the very same sickness. This sickness has severe consequences, not only for those individuals who choose to participate in it, but for society as a whole. When you defend any part of this, you are defending all of it.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. Reducing a bunch of disparate things - some actual problems, others not so much - into a single cohesive whole, is both spectacularly simple minded and completely useless.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Bob Blaylock said:
I disagree that the immorality which you defend is harmless.

I think it is obvious that society is suffering a great many ills, as a result of sexual immorality, and the destruction of the family as the basis for society. High rates of illegitimacy, high rates of divorce, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, drug abuse, gang crime — all of it is part of the very same sickness. This sickness has severe consequences, not only for those individuals who choose to participate in it, but for society as a whole. When you defend any part of this, you are defending all of it.
Click to expand...

Your gut is not an accurate tool for measuring any of those things.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

BayToBay said:
If it were about morality then vigilante justice would be commonplace. It is about preserving social order.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that simply saying its to preserve the social order in response is simply avoiding why the social order exists at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom