The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality

The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/11/2012 6:26:33 AM)
SCALIA GOES OFF: 'IF WE CAN'T HAVE MORAL FEELINGS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY, CAN WE AGAINST MURDER?' So I guess we know how he`ll vote....as well as the token independent....Thomas.....

mnottertail -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/11/2012 6:28:17 AM)
We don't want these idiotic teabaggers like Scalia, legislating from the bench as they always do.

Moonhead -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 4:40:21 AM)
Gosh, there's a surprise. [:D] In other news, snow is cold and the sea is wet...

Kirata -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 5:45:18 AM)
It is perfectly clear that equating laws* banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder* cannot be reduced to equating sodomy with bestiality and murder. Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both... Hosie said afterward that he was not persuaded by Scalia's answer. Hosie is an idiot. K.

Moonhead -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 8:29:06 AM)
So what's the parallel if he isn't equating the two, then? Sounds more like he's trying to legalise his way out of being called on comparing the two. That is what he's paid for, I suppose, but it's still a pretty shoddy argument.

kdsub -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 1:49:59 PM)
Why use murder and bestiality as comparisons together in the first place when associating with homosexuality? Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 1:51:48 PM)
Im going to go out on a limb with this.... but I think the comparison is that people found all three as equally repugnant at one time. Hmmm.... taking that one step further.... if all three were equally as repugnant,, and one is going by the way side and becoming more acceptable... then when will the other two become accepted? This is definitely not my own views.... consider it playing devil's advocate.

kdsub -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 1:55:31 PM)
I don't know about " People " but I certainly think he does. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 2:06:15 PM)
Scalia is right.... sodomy was illegal in all 50 states at one point... so... yeah... I would go with "people"

DomKen -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 3:13:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata It is perfectly clear that equating laws* banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder* cannot be reduced to equating sodomy with bestiality and murder. Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both... Hosie said afterward that he was not persuaded by Scalia's answer. Hosie is an idiot. K. Scalia has apparently become completely senile. Scalia's argument boils down to this statement: If the majority of legislators, at any time, find a behavior immoral it can be made permanently illegal, except in cases where Scalia disagrees with those legislators (see Heller v DC).

JeffBC -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 3:22:51 PM)
I agree with Scalia. What makes some things "legal" and other things "not"? Why are we allowed to legislate in some areas and not others? In the end, the body of law seems to me to be the codified moral judgement of it's community. I think it's perfectly valid to ask whether <xxxx> should be legal. I would expect those who find <xxxx> utterly horrendous to vote in favor of making it illegal.

slvemike4u -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 3:53:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata It is perfectly clear that equating laws* banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder* cannot be reduced to equating sodomy with bestiality and murder. Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both... Hosie said afterward that he was not persuaded by Scalia's answer. Hosie is an idiot. K. It is perfectly clear that not being persuaded by the answer does not reduce Hosie to an idiotic state. For instance,while I might understand the argument and the tactic....this does not mean I am now required to be persuaded by it...anyone suggesting otherwise is clearly an asshole [8\|]

kdsub -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 4:56:02 PM)
quote: Why are we allowed to legislate in some areas and not others You can legislate anything you want...it is up to the courts if that particular legislation...and others like it...violate the Constitution. I don't quite understand where he is coming from myself. Just because it is possible to legislate the basic human rights of gays does not make it right because there is legislation on bestiality or murder. Butch

searching4mysir -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 5:11:00 PM)
FR He is using Reductio ad absurdum to discuss why we can have feelings about the morality of one action and not another.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 5:15:40 PM)
quote: "It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" This is his argument.... which... while I understand it, I dont agree with it. Anyone see the flaw in his argument?

DomKen -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 5:27:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: "It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" This is his argument.... which... while I understand it, I dont agree with it. Anyone see the flaw in his argument? Yes. We, as a society, do not have an issue with the morality of killing. We have an issue with one member of society harming another. The basis of law should be "Does this act harm another person?" Murder obviously does and homosexuality obviously does not.

slvemike4u -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 5:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir FR He is using Reductio ad absurdum to discuss why we can have feelings about the morality of one action and not another. Agreed. Now what will that have to do with the Constitutionality of any laws that might impact on the rights of gays and lesbians ? I can have moral feelings about any fucking issue I like,I can not, constitutionally speaking abridge the rights of my fellow citizens Of course Scalia is,in my moral opinion,an asshole. And there isn't anything absurd at all about my feeling that way [:)] Ken's just a little faster than me.....lol.

slvemike4u -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 5:34:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: "It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" This is his argument.... which... while I understand it, I dont agree with it. Anyone see the flaw in his argument? Which one Tazzy ? The murder is an act,while homosexuality is not flaw ? Ken beat me to it,of course in my defense I was banging out my previous post while Ken was answering this one.....so it wasn't fair at all....lol

tazzygirl -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 5:35:48 PM)
Now, add in the beastiality issue. Its something we often preach on this site.... Consent. 2 adults can consent to a relationship.. and lets face it.. sodomy doesnt have to involve any men at all... thanks to toy stores. But, without consent, its rape. Rape is illegal... no consent.... Murder is illegal.... its the unlawful killing of someone... and the law says no one can consent to being murdered. Beastiality.... again.. an animal cannot consent. To me, these are not moral issues, they are all legal ones

slvemike4u -> RE: The Bigot`s Case Against Homosexuality (12/12/2012 5:38:50 PM)
See...thats why I asked "which one" There are more flaws in that argument than there are holes in swiss cheese.[:D]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02