• 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.

Samhain said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said and I agree. I don't think the government has any business legislating morality. So did I read the article wrong and Scalia is also against legislating morality....unless the majority want it?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

"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."

If one considers what is done in the bedroom between consenting adults is ok how can one consider adultery immoral?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Dragonfly said:
Isn't there a difference between a "universal morality" (murder) and a "personal morality" like sexual attraction and even eating meat on Friday?
Click to expand...

There certainly ought to be. The fact is there is no clear consensus on one type of "morality" but there is on the other.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

digsbe said:
Personally, I think the scum of the court are the justices that won't stand up for human rights by banning elective abortions that so clearly violate a human's most sacred right, the right to life.

I also agree with Scalia. Why can't people have feelings against homosexuality or also believe that it is immoral just like they believe murder is immoral?
Click to expand...

As you know I'm the guy that argues against homosexuality without a religious bone to pick, however, something the homophiles really dislike is when you bring up the notion that homosexuality is natural, but yet, dislike and contempt for homosexuality cannot be equally natural. (I use the word natural in its contemporary meaning within the context for illustration only)

Now to head of joker... Is it my understanding that you are NOW claiming to be a lawyer in addition to an economist?? :)

If you were even remotely qualified as a lawyer you would have seen right off that Scalia was in NO way equating homosexuality to murder. It was clear to anyone that can read a 4th grade textbook that his argument was ad absurdium.. My God people, get a grip. Even the kid that asked Scalia the question said that he felt as though that Justice Scalia was kind and courteous to him in answering.


Tim-
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

I can not find one iota of immorality in homosexuality. Love is love, no matter who engages. It's the opposite of harmful.

Adultery seems to be so easily forgiven. Now, that's immoral. Dishonesty is immoral. Injuring others is immoral. Failing to help others is immoral.


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...
 
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...

You can say chocolate milk is immoral for all I care. Evil is forcing your opinion of morality on others.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Adultery is a form of fraud. Fraud is pretty much accepted as immoral. That commandment was thrown away so our rules coud get some nooky on the side and yet be cheered by their rabid party followers.



hfd said:
"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."

If one considers what is done in the bedroom between consenting adults is ok how can one consider adultery immoral?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

iguanaman said:
You can say chocolate milk is immoral for all I care. Evil is forcing your opinion of morality on others.
Click to expand...

So do you have no opinions on any social issues? Most laws are essentially forcing opinions upon others.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

hfd said:
"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."

If one considers what is done in the bedroom between consenting adults is ok how can one consider adultery immoral?
Click to expand...

This goes against your point. Laws criminalizing adultery were pure moralizing for the most part. Eventually, legislatures decided to treat married people like adults and let them decide what to do when a spouse committed adultery. They can always divorce or have an argument about it, or decide it's fine. It's nobody else's business.

In contrast, preventing murder is everybody's business.

Homosexuality -- i.e., the sexual preference between consenting adults is more like the former and not the latter with respect to whether moralizating about it is anybody's business. While some people can have moral objections to adultery or homosexuality or eating meat for that matter, their personal moral issues should not be embodied in law because it doesn't harm them and it's none of their business. It's something adults can work out among themselves.

So WHY did Scalia compare homosexuality to murder, again?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

digsbe said:
So do you have no opinions on any social issues? Most laws are essentially forcing opinions upon others.
Click to expand...

False: most criminal laws are to prevent or punish conduct that harms other people financially or physically. Most civil laws are to protect property and transactions. Again, while we may attach moral feelings to some or all of these law, that isn't enough. There must be actual harm or an interest to protect.

Moral feelings that people shouldn't eat meat is scarcely a reason to enforce vegetarianism.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

RepublicanMcDuc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Other than that—unlike far too many people today—he still recognizes the difference between right and wrong, good and evil; and is not afraid to speak for good and against evil even if doing so will result in people calling him a bigot for so doing.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Bob Blaylock said:
Other than that—unlike far too many people today—he still recognizes the difference between right and wrong, good and evil; and is not afraid to speak for good and against evil even if doing so will result in people calling him a bigot for so doing.
Click to expand...

The fact that he's thought of as bigoted for his definition of evil might give one pause as to whether or not he's accurately identifying what evil really is.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

specklebang said:
I can not find one iota of immorality in homosexuality. Love is love, no matter who engages. It's the opposite of harmful.

Adultery seems to be so easily forgiven. Now, that's immoral. …
Click to expand...

Arguing that one form of immorality is now widely-tolerated in society is no argument in support of a similar form of immorality.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

iguanaman said:
You can say chocolate milk is immoral for all I care. Evil is forcing your opinion of morality on others.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase Einstein, evil doesn't happen so much because of people doing evil, but because of otherwise good people who tolerate and allow it.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Bob Blaylock said:
Arguing that one form of immorality is now widely-tolerated in society is no argument in support of a similar form of immorality.
Click to expand...

Every person's morality is his own. The issue is making law, which is a public concern. And personal morality is no basis for law, especially when its only purpose is to discriminate.

The purpose of laws against murder are to protect people, not to discriminate against murderers because we don't like them. The purpose of laws against gays is simply to discriminate against gays because some (insecure) members of our society don't like them.

See the difference? Scalia doesn't.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

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.







Bob Blaylock said:
Arguing that one form of immorality is now widely-tolerated in society is no argument in support of a similar form of immorality.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Bob Blaylock said:
To paraphrase Einstein, evil doesn't happen so much because of people doing evil, but because of otherwise good people who tolerate and allow it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

head of joaquin said:
Every person's morality is his own. The issue is making law, which is a public concern. And personal morality is no basis for law, ....
Click to expand...

ALL law is created from some sense of morality. Since most people do not believe there is anything objective about morals that would mean what do you think?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Henrin said:
ALL law is created from some sense of morality. Since most people do not believe there is anything objective about morals that would mean what do you think?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

head of joaquin said:
False: most criminal laws are to prevent or punish conduct that harms other people financially or physically. Most civil laws are to protect property and transactions. Again, while we may attach moral feelings to some or all of these law, that isn't enough. There must be actual harm or an interest to protect.

Moral feelings that people shouldn't eat meat is scarcely a reason to enforce vegetarianism.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

Henrin said:
ALL law is created from some sense of morality. Since most people do not believe there is anything objective about morals that would mean what do you think?
Click to expand...

All morals may be subjective, but some are more subjective than others. The basis for laws focus on actions that cause demonstrable financial or physical harm. Trying to go further than that in criminalizing actions is dangerous to everyone in society. Bob Blaylock for instance is a Mormon and he would find himself receiving similar persecution as homosexuals if the mainstream religious groups were allowed to put their morality into law. The rational interest of self preservation is an excellent motivation for preventing such laws, as nearly every individual does something with which the majority does not approve and could easily find themselves on the wrong end of the chopping block.
 
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...

Thinking something is "immoral" is one thing. Comparing it to murder is quite another.

Especially when what you are comparing to murder is what most intelligent an open minded adults view as nothing more than a loving relationship between two people.

There are gay children out there struggling to come to grips with who they are. What message does it send when a Supreme Court Justice that might be making a ruling an SSM makes such an asinine and ignorant statement?

Kids are dying because they can't handle the stress of not being accepted for who they are.

If you're sexually attracted to white Swedish girls, but not dark skinned black women, does that mean that being attracted to dark skinned black women is as immoral as murder?

The stupidity of the comment is overwhelming considering who he is and the position he's going to be in soon.
 
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...

Do you think it would appropriate for Scalia to comment on his personal view about protestant immorality before making ruling regarding an evangelical church?
 
Re: Justice Scalia compares homosexuality to murder.

head of joaquin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

A simply look at the laws on the books will tell you comes down to nothing but the will of the politicians and their own sense of morality and power.

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

False. There is a indeed a underlining objective side to morality and a simply look at history will show you that at least to some degree all societies follow it to a degree.
 
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.

So, tell me. What is it that he said that makes him a target for homosexuals?? If it's from this, it's much ado about absolutely nothing:
Click to expand...

His opinion in Lawrence v Texas. He does not simply believe they should be barred from marriage. He believes the state should be able to put them in jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom