Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

We all know Scalla is not pro gay lifestyle.......

I am not asking if you defend gay rights.  We have beaten that horse to death.

I am more interest on how you veiw his logic.  I have to agree at least to an extent.  All laws are based on what is right and wrong, even if the wrong is because someone deems it unsafe or unwise.  So by extension laws are based on morals (not just christian but a sense of what is right and wrong/ what works and what doesn't)


So do you think his ARGUMENT  has a true foundation or validity?  (not the issue itself)


Asked by Dardenella at 2:24 PM on Dec. 11, 2012 in Politics & Current Events

Level 47 (265,144 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (21)
  • i dont like Scalia and i think his logic is flawed. the way he views the Constitution, "Unless you give [the laws] the meaning of those who enacted them, you’re destroying democracy", would make slavery legal, non-whites & females would lose all rights. he wants to use reductio ad absurdum, well i'll watch it bite him in the ass.

    there is nothing unsafe or unwise about gay marriage. there are enough examples of gay families now to prove that it doesnt harm children. the only moral that can be used against gay marriage is the Bible...which should also be used to make divorce illegal if that is how we're going to enact laws.

    but then i guess the SC needs its set in stone, old school conservative in order to give it balance. hopefully, the other judges will approach this without having already made up their mind as to how they will vote.

    Answer by okmanders at 2:38 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • What's sad is that I read my response and it bothers me that I sound like an activist. I'm not anything like that. I think when I look at marriage as it is now, there are plenty of immoral heterosexual people that are married. They don't exactly firm the case for morality. And then you have lifelong partners that happen to be gay and I just don't see how that kind of relationship would be considered immoral. I respect both sides of the debate though.  Anyhow, with the parallel I think we need to look at he purpose behind a marriage or union and take that into consideration before we worry about the gender of those that are willingly participating in that relationship.  


    Answer by QuinnMae at 2:50 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • The problem is that morality isn't something we can legislate. It's so personal; what I view as immoral may be entirely different than anyone else. We've tried legislating morality in the past (think Prohibition) and it's a dismal failure because humans are human.

    Answer by Mrs_Prissy at 3:01 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • His comments, as usual, are deplorable. Show me ONE person that has EVER been hurt by gay marriage/equal rights for gay people.
    You can't.

    I can, however, show you PLENTY of people that have been hurt by murder.

    Scalia is a despicable piece of shit and it is a SHAME that he is in a position of power in this country.

    Answer by FreeForAll at 3:15 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • Now, I do not see an argument that connects bestiality. An animal cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with a human. Same goes with pedophiles. You have people that belong to groups like NAMBLA that try to insist that grown adult men having a sexual relationship with a child is normal. It is not. A child cannot legally consent to that kind of a relationship. So while I think there are moral obligations to protect those that are not legally able to consent to that kind of a relationship, I think there is room to allow those that ARE legally able to consent in a relationship the ability to make that commitment to each other. I don't see that as a negative for society. That's JMO though.


    Answer by QuinnMae at 2:56 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • Not really.

    Answer by QuinnMae at 2:30 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • Well, I think as time goes on we need to look at the relevance to our society today. I think back when the constitution was written that homosexuality was considered immoral. The fact is, a homosexual relationship is a consensual relationship between two adults that can legally consent. I don't consider what was relevant in the late 1700's particularly relevant to today. Same goes with the second amendment. You have people arguing that at the time weapons consisted of muskets. It's the purpose behind the right to bear arms that must be protected, IMO.  

    I'm not saying he is wrong (I have not studied constitutional law), but I don't agree with his opinion about ruling what is moral and immoral.  


    Answer by QuinnMae at 2:37 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • no. gay marriage involves two, consenting adults, much different from beastiality.

    Answer by tnm786 at 2:49 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • *didn't mean to bring second amendment rights into the conversation, just making a parallel about relevance from when the document was signed to how we live out lives today.

    Answer by QuinnMae at 2:39 PM on Dec. 11, 2012

  • Scalia is a despicable piece of shit and it is a SHAME that he is in a position of power in this country

    FreeForAll is a smart cookie, and this I agree with!

    Answer by older at 3:34 PM on Dec. 11, 2012