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 don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
“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 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?).”
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.
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 to consider.
Homosexuals used to chant “AIDS is not a gay disease!” over and over, hoping the rest of us would get it.””
And there was a concerted effort by the ‘gay’ community to spread it to those outside their deviant circles.
how come John and Meryl and their kids qualify as a family while Bill and Steve and their adopted Chinese girl do not?)’
The simple and civilized answer: Sex-offenders are not allowed to take possession of other people’s children. This is not ancient Rome.
“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.”
1. Let them be permitted? It’s quite obvious that we have ‘fallen’ far enough. Any rebuilding will not take place in the way that a vast multitude believe it will.
2. Being sexually deviant is in and of itself a behavior “out of control”, is it not? Enough so to nip such things from becoming the norm, in the bud. It still is the right thing to do, even if our current society seems to have had that erased from their memories.
3. This is no different than giving cancer a chance to spread.
4. Not true. You would be AMAZED at the multitudes who are utterly sick & tired of it (like rotgut). And affected by it just by the sheer unrelenting saturation of it in our society, schools, military, govt, etc.
The one big problem I see with this country is...the majority have the ‘mindset’ of waiting until things get out-of-control, and THEN we’ll fix it attitude.....rather than have the wisdom to ensure that we are NOT governed in such ways as we have been, and are. Unless THAT changes, nothing else will.
Above all, and in Scalia’s defense....it’s impossible to “dehumanize” a “human behavior”, as the homosexuals may feel is when it comes to the marriage issue. This would seem more a matter of “self-dehumanizing” due to having lost track of how equal we already are, yet being equal to them means having more than what being ‘equal’ defines.
Meeting the homosexual community’s demand to be able to ‘marry’ consistently brings to the forefront the inequalities of such a union when compared to the heterosexual. Anyone else notice this repetitious pattern?
We can fight but when the gubmint make sweeping laws against the will of the people what choices do we have?
The lifting of DADT was against they will of almost all the soldiers except for the deviants.
The deviants use up a lot of resources to get laws changed even though they are a minute percentage of the population.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.