MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The point is that your initial point is dumb as Hell.
Do you consider yourself a moral relativist, Maggie?
The fact that he seriously thinks that being gay, and murder are on the same plane morally is damning enough. He wouldn't make the argument otherwise.
I'd be happy to answer that if I knew what a moral relativist was, Einzige. But if you went through these last three posts of yours to simply say, "Your initial point is dumb as hell," then it really doesn't make much difference. You're a very poor communicator. That likes obscure terms. Obscure terms =/= intelligence.
I can understand it, but I'm not going to pretend that it's not wrong. And I'm sure as **** not going to not fight when he tries to discriminate against me.
I think he was just trying to take the most outrageous example of having moral feelings about an outlawed act to make his point. His statement does not mean he necissarily thinks murder and homosexuality are on the same plane morally, unless the plane includes everything he thinks is immoral.
I feel better that you can understand it, YourStar. And I don't blame you one iota for disagreeing with his archaic way of thinking. He's an old man...from an older world. In regards todays' morals, his thoughts are irrelevant, in my opinion.
I feel better that you can understand it, YourStar. And I don't blame you one iota for disagreeing with his archaic way of thinking. He's an old man...from an older world. In regards todays' morals, his thoughts are irrelevant, in my opinion.
The fact that he seriously thinks that being gay, and murder are on the same plane morally is damning enough. He wouldn't make the argument otherwise.
He was comparing the ability of having moral feelings about homosexuality and murder. He was not comparing homosexuality and murder themselves.
That is a ridiculous argument. But it still isn't directly comparing murder and homosexuality, and it certainly isn't equating them.
Jesus Christ, "moral relativism" isn't an 'obscure term'. Goddamned John Hagee uses it liberally in condemning modern society. It's long been a favorite watchword of undereducated right-wing moralists, and 'moral relativists' rarely apply the term to themselves.
Let me put it in a language you can understand: do you think that some moral rules apply more to some people than to others?
I don't think so, he's a pretty big bigot.
Who the HELL is John Hagee?
Never mind. Thanks for the translation. My answer to your question would be no. In regards this particular post, I don't see how that applies. Advocating for gay rights...understanding that being homosexual is not a choice but a gender...all the rest -- is newer-age thinking. And right, as far as I'm concerned. But I can most certainly understand a guy in his 70's having a problem with it. If you can't? That's your shortcoming.
If Scalia wasn't making the comparison then why did he say it?
See? You are a moral relativist, whether you know it (or what the word means) or not. "He's older, and as such exempt from some of the moral rules we apply to ourselves today."
Scalia wants to overturn Lawrence vs Texas and allow states to outlaw homosexual acts. He is comparing them.
Well his thoughts aren't really irrelevant since he's on the SCOTUS. I'm not going to judge him on the morals of the 50's, I'm going to judge him on the morals of today, and today holding those views is wrong, and he should be judged accordingly.
He's not exempt from anything except perhaps harsh judgment for his beliefs. If understanding why an old man would be against practicing homosexuality, same-sex marriage and all the rest makes me a moral relativist, I certainly don't consider that an insult.
Yes he does. In this statement, he still isn't directly comparing the two though.
*Shrug* I'm sure there are many views held by SCOTUS justices that you wouldn't agree with. At least his view, on this particular subject, is understandable.
Turtle ... he compared homosexuality to murder.well Scalia is widely seen as one of the greatest intellects to ever sit on the court. we get the fact that you don't like his views on gays, lesbians etc. and while I disagree with him on his views towards gays he certainly is a better justice than anyone the dems have appointed in the last 40 years
Worse, he's comparing the principle that "moral feelings" that amount to discrimination against minorities can be embodied into law, even if they have no social purpose beside emobying discriminatory desires.
You're absolutely, completely incorrect. He ought to be judged harshly despite his age, and particularly given his willingness to invoke his own moral absolutes. There are certain higher principles, and Scalia has violated them. His age is irrelevant in determining the worthiness of his views for consideration.
The Supreme Court justice was visiting Princeton University on Monday to discuss his latest book when a college freshman, who identifies as gay, asked Scalia about the comparison he has drawn between laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
“If we cannot have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything?” Scalia said in response to the question, according to The Daily Princetonian.
Being understandable doesn't make it right. Just because one grew up in a time where it was okay to discriminate, harass, beat up, and kill LGBT people doesn't make it okay to hold those values today. He shouldn't get a free pass just because he's old. That kind of thinking is what holds back progress.
If Scalia is an orginalist then what do moral feelings have to do with the constitution or statutory law? Is the court in the habit of ruling on feelings? No, I think Scalia meant exactly what he said, that he thinks homosexuality is immoral and he deliberately made the comparison to murder to make his point known. Whether he rules on his feeeeeelings or the intent of the constitution remains to be seen.He was comparing the ability of having moral feelings about homosexuality and murder. He was not comparing homosexuality and murder themselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?