Skip to comments.‘Dehumanizing’ Gays? Scalia Defends His Views on Banning Gay Marriage During Princeton Speech
Posted on 12/11/2012 6:55:52 PM PST by NKP_Vet
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday found himself defending his legal writings that some find offensive and anti-gay.
Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
I dont think its necessary, but I think its effective, Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
If there is secession, I want Scalia as the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court of the Free States of America!
I am convinced we have at least 3 more.. gulp
>> I dont think its necessary, but I think its effective, Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
The equality in question doesn’t seem to be a statement of Scalia’s moral position.
Separately, Scalia stated the govt has the Constitutional right to regulate firearms.
He’s an interesting and precise speaker. Not sure about his personal take on matters. He seems to speak on behalf of founding law instead of offering up his subjective views.
...and a libertarian's worst nightmare.
What is it about a man preferring to have sex with another man’s asshole that makes them so special? This isn’t like they are another race or religion. They just prefer putting their sex organs into some VERY nasty places. I see no need to set aside ‘special rights’, just for them.
They should have all the same rights under the Constitution that the rest of us have. No more, no less. Personally, I don’t believe marriage should be a legal matter concerning the federal government. In my opinion, the government at any level should have nothing to do with marriage at all.
By libertarian do you mean liberals that believe in small government. That’s all a libertarian is. In all other areas they are no different than a liberal.
I think a libertarian is somebody who wants free market and individual responsibility to reign — basically, somebody who believes that government has very limited powers when it comes to economy and society. The government simply exists to defend the rights of free people, whether the free people are religious nuts or fudgepacking fags.
You see a lot of so-called conservatives who want government mandates — mostly on their preferred social agendas. They are no different from liberals who want government to perform social engineering.
Very well put!
sadly the desire for social engineering exists in equal force on both the right and left...
One of my neighbors is very fond of his horse and has told me on several occasions that he would marry her if he could. Another neighbor is interested in acquiring at least two more wives in addition to his current wife. The one across the street has expressed a desire to wed the 13 year old girl that delivers our newspaper.
Tell me, which of these actions should be permitted?
I say let them all be permitted. I think the country needs to fall so we can rebuild it.
Sexual deviancy has a way of spilling out of control real fast.
If you look at sexual predators they always start slow and then they go out of control as their desires get the better of them.
All this homo marriage and rights stuff has not affected the average American yet.
Of course, in the case of the 13 year old and the horse, anyone wishing to get married should be a consenting adults, which would rule these instances out. With regard to the dude wanting two wives, they can knock themselves out, if that's what they REALLY want to do. It's none of my business.
Leftists support “gay rights” because it is a very effective way to shake their little fists in God’s face.
The point is you have a limit, a line that you won't cross.
homosexuality is ONLY recreational as with all the other examples.
it serves no purpose to the future of society.
The great hero to all libertarians, Ron Paul, voted for sodomy in the US Armed Forces. Libertarians could also care less if marriage is destroyed forever. They will argue with you over the “right” of a sodomite to “marry” his/or her “partner”. This is a classic LIBERAL mindset. They also want people to be able to ingest any type of drug they want into their body, no matter how harmful it is to someone’s health. This is also classic LIBERAL mindset. They are also the worse bunch of Neville Chamberlain’s in the world, seeing no war that should have ever been fought. Another trait they have in common with their LIBERAL brothers. And to most libertarians it’s OK to abort a baby because it’s no one’s business but the woman’s if she wants to murder her child.
Let’s take it point by point (by the order of importance):
1. Abortion - taking somebody’s life or supporting somebody killing somebody is not a libertarian philosophy. A libertarian would want his government to punish the murderers, because the government exists solely to protect life and liberty and facilitate free market economy. In this case, killing an unborn would be murder and the libertarian government would prosecute the murdering mother and doctor to the fullest extent.
2. Military - a military exists to protect the life and liberty of free people. If those join the ranks meet the criteria (ability to defend freedom) then they should not be barred in a free society. If you believe in freedom, which logically includes freedom to be a flaming homo, it is your right as well. As long as the flaming homosexualism does not prevent you from taking arms against the enemy, then why put constraints?
3. Marriage - first of all, why is the government in this marriage business anyway? For tax deductible reasons? If so, this is the biggest scam ever. Let people decide what marriage is, not your government. It is ironic that “limited government” conservatives want government to dictate to them what should be the most intimate personal decision. If you keep government out of marriage, this “gay marriage” scam goes away anyway.
4. Drugs - you cannot stop people from hurting themselves. Why stop at drugs? Why not alcohol or tobacco? Liberals want to ban those, as well. A libertarian would look at the drug laws in the country and see an out of control government encroachment.
Did I cover all your “concerns” about those evil libertarians?
Libertarians are selfish perverts who see no need for social order as it gets in the way of them indulging in their pet perversion(s). They claim to be free market however see no need to protect the institutions resulting from the free marketplace of ideas e.g. marriage. They disavow any government support of maintaining such social order.
Plain and simple -Libertarians are anarchistic perverts and enemies of social order.
Marriage between one man and one woman is social engineering? You must be a Libertarian.
The Libertarian Party Platform states (last time I looked, some time within the last year) that all of the homo-agenda should be legal - same sex marriage, adoption, fostering, and in the military. All prostituion and porn legalized, and all - ALL - drugs, no holds barred. And the LP party is also pro-illegal with little to no restriction on illegals pouring over the border. Oh, and abortion is “a woman’s right to choose”.
So it’s a bit more than “small government”. A whole lot more, actually. In fact, the LP and whoever agrees with it is basically the kook anarchy gun loving fringe of the hard left. Don’t forget that Bill Ayers calls himself an “anarcho-communist”.
And their platform never says that they’re okay with states having laws against the dope, porn, prostitution, fag agenda or abortion. They want it all legalized, without restricion.
Islam considers a girl who has had her first menses (or even before, many Islamic clerics say) is ready for marriage. Who are YOU to say they are wrong?
And Germany has an organization claiming that there are 100,000 bestiality practitioners who do not want bestiality made illegal. Who are YOU to say they shouldn’t be allowed to get their jollies?
What are you, a prude or a Puritan who wants to infringe on the freedom of others to live their lives as they see fit? Imposing your morality on others! Fie!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
And some are even closer than a half step from anarchists. I suppose they fondly imagine in their world of "freedom" everything would be peaceful and happy since everyone can puruse their faggotry/porn/hiring prostitutes/ingensting every kind of dope without fear of the law. And since the Libertarian Party also is for "a woman's right to choose", then the annoyance of unwanted pregnancies would not impede anyone's life of "freedom", either. What they either don't or won't see, or lie about, is the total social breakdown and ensuing violence and chaos that would be the inevitable and quick result of their utopian adolescent fantasy.
Aside for beer, cigarettes, and perhaps spending a bit too much on firearms related stuff(from my wife’s point of view), I literally have no vices. I’m kind of boring like that.....
I was not even thinking about the “Libertarian Party” platform when talking about libertarian philosophy of limited government. Btw, abortion is against libertarian philosophy because it is about snuffing out life and liberty of a living person for somebody’s convenience. No amount of twisted logic can justify it.
That's their twisted religion. I certainly wouldn't agree with it, since it doesn't involve CONSENTING ADULTS.
"And Germany has an organization claiming that there are 100,000 bestiality practitioners who do not want bestiality made illegal."
I couldn't care less. Again, I stated that marriage should be between consenting adults. I don't believe that would involve animals either. On the other hand, if someone goes out and buys a cow, and decides to bugger it, rather than slaughter, I really don't give a damn. They can knock themselves out.(chances are the steer will take care of that anyway. lol)
If someone talks about “libertarian” or “libertarianism” then they should define what they happen to mean by it. Beacuse I have carefully read both the official LP platform and website, and read many comments on FR by self admiited libertarians, and pro-abortion is definitely part of the Real Official Libertarian Party platform, and many self admitted libertarians say it’s up to the states. Which is saying that a state can legalize murder and it’s fine with said self-admitted libertarians.
Give me a logical reason why Islamists who want to marry 12 year old girls should bow to your POV, which. I see no reason why you are right and they are wrong. And supposes some bestiality practioners want to marry an animal? Why are they wrong and you right?
It’s personal preference, after all. You just want to be right because you like your viewpoint better than theirs, but hey - they feel the same way! Create your own reality, personal freedom, and all that good stuff. Oh, and keep the gov out of our bedrooms (and barns.,..) and out of our private lives.
That’s the libertarian way.
Just re-read your comment and noticed that. Well, the Official Real Libertarian Party thinks it's okay.
Maybe libertarians should use another word to describe themselves if they're not on board with the Libertarian Party.
If we cast our focus on male homosexual behavior; we know that disgusting acts that result in fecal oral passing of infectious agents, doing such acts in filthy public restrooms, forming organizations devoted to the rape of young boys (ie NAMBLA and B4U-ACT), spreading venereal diseases like typhoid Larry, lacking basic sanitary behavior, and marching in parades to expose their genitals in public, then yes, it is at the least a huge threat to public health and children. If this behavior is anything else but sinful, the supporters are masters of downplaying the reality.
The problem is you leave out consideration of the public health threat of the lifestyle on normal people and their children. If the spread of their infectious diseases to the innocent was not a concern, then yes, we are on the same page. The reality is very different.
It isn’t government so much in marriage that is causing the problem. It is the damnable lawyers. Lawyers run all branches of government to their advantage. This profession is most responsible for our decline.
There’s a reason why government has a vested stake in marriage: namely, family law.
How do assets get divided between family members in the event of death/divorce/accident/etc? How do you DEFINE a family member in that context?
Even if government got out of the civil marriage business, there would still be a need for family law, and you’d have the same debate as now but from a different angle (aka how come John and Meryl and their kids qualify as a family while Bill and Steve and their adopted Chinese girl do not?).
The fallacy that civilization can exist with no legal (aka “government”) recognizition of marriage is adolescent fantasy at best; in fact, it is often used as a dishonest argument to destroy (real) marriage entirely.
“...many self admitted libertarians say its up to the states. Which is saying that a state can legalize murder and its fine with said self-admitted libertarians.”
Those sound rather statists. No government has rights over innocent life, whether it is a local government, State government, federal government, or the world government. The governments sole reason for existance is to protect the rights of people by punishing rights violators (murderers, thieves, moochers, etc) and freeing up the market for trade.
Abortion is the worst kind of violation of the rights of people; it is where an innocent life is murdered for convenience of others. If a government(local/State/Federal/World) condones it and, worse, funds it, then that government does not believe in liberty despite what the its constitution says.
I cannot explain other libertarians, but this libertarian believes that when a person violates somebody’s rights and government turns the blind eye(worse, funds it), then that is the worst kind of government. Abortion-supporting governments (local/State/federal/world) cannot be for liberty, thus cannot be libertarian ideal.
“How do assets get divided between family members in the event of death/divorce/accident/etc? How do you DEFINE a family member in that context?”
It is the dying person’s responsibility. No government can assume that responsibility... if you let them take that responsibility, they will take over your estate(i.e. the laws in place where government takes 50% of your estate upon your death.)
What I am talking is not fiddling with the system, rather complete cleansing. If you die and have not given rights to your property explicitly, i.e. you were not responsible for your own planning, then default judgments can happen. Leave that $100 bill on the sidewalk and complain that somebody took it.
“Even if government got out of the civil marriage business, there would still be a need for family law, and youd have the same debate as now but from a different angle (aka how come John and Meryl and their kids qualify as a family while Bill and Steve and their adopted Chinese girl do not?).”
Leave that to the person who owns. Very simple. Make it contractual, not governmental oversight.
“The problem is you leave out consideration of the public health threat of the lifestyle on normal people and their children. If the spread of their infectious diseases to the innocent was not a concern, then yes, we are on the same page. The reality is very different.”
It all depends whether or not homosexual-borne diseases magically enter you and your children’s bloodstream. Preventing homosexual-borne diseases in you and your children is your responsibility, not the government’s.
If two homosexuals’ intercourse results in AIDS/STDs, then why would I be threatened? I would only be threatened if they want to donate blood or want to infect me. As long as their AIDS/STDs are contained within them (their right to get AIDS/STDs), then have all the power.
You call yourself a libertarian, but are at odds with the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian icon Ron Paul, and many libertarians on FR and elsewhere. You appear to be in the minority in that regard.
I am an individual with individual thoughts, opinions, rights, responsibilities, abilities, motives, desires, and luck. I do not put much emphasis on somebody’s political definition nor the estimation of its numerical proportion.
Homosexuals used to chant “AIDS is not a gay disease!” over and over, hoping the rest of us would get it. The rest of us did not, as it is not that easy to catch without sharing needles or having sodomy with others who have it.
But - they are insisting on giving blood, just as they insist on every other item on their nasty agenda, and sooner or later (if things keep going in this direction) they will be legally allowed to give blood. Then their hope that “AIDS is not a gay disease” may come to pass.
Plus they are vectors of numerous other seriously nasty diseases that do infect the wider community, notably increasingly drug resistant TB. THe fag community is rife with TB, especially because their immune systems are shot, even the ones with out AIDS yet. Just the very act of sodomy messes up the immune system, even if not promiscuous (which almost all of them are anyway).
What a long string of words...
If someone calls themselves a Democrat but does not adhere to the Dem party platform, one would wonder why he calls himself a Dem.
So therefore it is odd that you call yourself a libertarian yet are at odds with the LP platform and the vast majority of other libertarians.
I think you are just playing with words and want me to associate myself to a meaningless political organization. Do you also believe that being “social” means belonging to the Socialist Party of USA?
Sigh. WOrds mean things. I’m really tired of deceit and duplicity, and this exchange with you reeks of it - and not from me. I mean what I say, and say what I mean, without sophistry.
Of course “social” doesn’t mean “socialist”. But “socialist” does mean “socialist”.
“family law” would simply be decided among family members. Those outside the family would simply mind their own damn business.
That’s fine but homosexuals are the number one vector for the spread of infectious diseases and the development of drug resistance microbes that jump outside the “gay” community. Unnecessary billions have been spent because of this. The diseases don’t stay restricted to the pervert population. They put the entire population at risk and great cost. You need a greater understanding of the epidemiology of infectious disease. HIV and drug resistance TB go together—coughing spreads TB. This is just one example for you comprehend.