Scalia says abortion, gay rights are ...

Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

There are 375 comments on the The Capital-Journal story from Oct 5, 2012, titled Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases. In it, The Capital-Journal reports that:

In this March 8, 2012 file phoo, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Capital-Journal.

Uve

Indio, CA

#109 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
"Shoes" and "feet" have to do with the individual, not society, so you make my point.
No I don't..I'm saying you wouldn't be so quick to make false generalizations and accept them as truth, about a group of people if you were in that group!
Junior Esquire

United States

#110 Oct 8, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, this line of discussion is too difficult for you. Perhaps if I type more slowly you'll catch on.
My claim is that there IS NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL REASON for denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage.
None.
I can't provide one.
There. Understand now? That's my claim.
To refute it, you'd need to come up with a legitimate governmental interest.
So far, you've failed.
You still don't understand logic.
You made the claim, prove it.
Don't ask me to dis-prove it.
The onus is on the claimant, which is YOU.
Junior Esquire

United States

#111 Oct 8, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but practicing unsafe sex is not just confined to Gays and Lesbians, but to straights as well!!!
And if we don't deny the right to marry for heterosexuals based on their sexual behavior.......then your argument fails for denying the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples!!!
The remedy for two dogs stuck together is to throw a bucket of cold water on them, not to grant them marriage rights.
Uve

Indio, CA

#112 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
You're the one who can't defend your own dung-holing. YOU need to STFU... NO, you need to keep talking. It shows the overwhelming weakness in your position.
Doesn't look like I'm the one who just revealed their ignorance.
Uve

Indio, CA

#113 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
"No evidence"?
Here's just one-
Gays are more likely to practice unsafe sex.
More generalizations...What if I were to say 'all heterosexuals only have sex to make babies'? Your argument/evidence is just as stupid.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#114 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
The remedy for two dogs stuck together is to throw a bucket of cold water on them, not to grant them marriage rights.
Well, considering that 2 dogs can't give consent to marry and on running off of instincts......and not looking for or needing a right to marry.......it's rather irrelevant to this discussion!!!
Uve

Indio, CA

#115 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
The remedy for two dogs stuck together is to throw a bucket of cold water on them, not to grant them marriage rights.
Only an ignorant POS bigot would make a statement like that..You've lost all credibility..F off
Junior Esquire

United States

#116 Oct 8, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
More generalizations...What if I were to say 'all heterosexuals only have sex to make babies'? Your argument/evidence is just as stupid.
The Lord invented sex simply for procreation.
It was mankind who repurposed it into "Sport F**king", noted with an eye-roll from the Lord.
The gays crossed the line however, when they repurposed the human wrecktum as an erogenous zone.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#117 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Marriage means between man and woman, male and female, opposite genders, husband and wife. It's case law and High Court consensus since we have had law. To try to make something that is between man and woman, for man and man or woman and woman, is to try to have a special right for those same gender unions.
Should the High Court ever confound the law by deciding same gender couples are entitled to use the word marriage I will naturally accept the Courts conclusion. Until then I will oppose gays using the word marriage for their partnerships and strongly defend the word marriage for unions between a man and woman.
IOW, you are against equal rights.
No shock there!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#118 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
"No evidence"?
Here's just one-
Gays are more likely to practice unsafe sex.
There is no evidence gay people are any less concerned with the greater needs of society than straight people are.
Still waiting...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#119 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
The Lord invented sex simply for procreation.
It was mankind who repurposed it into "Sport F**king", noted with an eye-roll from the Lord.
The gays crossed the line however, when they repurposed the human wrecktum as an erogenous zone.
The lord is a myth. Grow up and accept reality. People have sex because it feels good. Many don't want to have kids, why do you think there is birth control and abortion? Why do you think sterile people have sex. Have you ever had sex!?
And, stupid, most people who have anal sex are straight.
Uve

Indio, CA

#120 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
The Lord invented sex simply for procreation.
It was mankind who repurposed it into "Sport F**king", noted with an eye-roll from the Lord.
The gays crossed the line however, when they repurposed the human wrecktum as an erogenous zone.
Don't even try..you've lost all credibility. POS

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#121 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
You still don't understand logic.
You made the claim, prove it.
Don't ask me to dis-prove it.
The onus is on the claimant, which is YOU.
Logic is lost on you.

My claim:

There is no legitimate governmental reason to exclude same-sex couples in civil marriage.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the AFFIRMATIVE claim.

I make no affirmative claim. My claim is formed in the negative.

For example:

Claim:

There exist no extraterrestrial aliens living among us.

By your logic, if I cannot prove there are no ETs living among us, then they do exist.

But it can't be done, and logic doesn't dictate that it should, because it's not an affirmative claim.

Back to Philosophy 1 for you.
Junior Esquire

United States

#122 Oct 8, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic is lost on you.
My claim:
There is no legitimate governmental reason to exclude same-sex couples in civil marriage.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the AFFIRMATIVE claim.
I make no affirmative claim. My claim is formed in the negative.
For example:
Claim:
There exist no extraterrestrial aliens living among us.
By your logic, if I cannot prove there are no ETs living among us, then they do exist.
But it can't be done, and logic doesn't dictate that it should, because it's not an affirmative claim.
Back to Philosophy 1 for you.
I never made an AFFIRMATIVE claim.
I said you need to prove your NEGATIVE claim, which you can't.

And your alien example proves nothing.
You can't prove that aliens do or do not exist.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#123 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
I never made an AFFIRMATIVE claim.
I said you need to prove your NEGATIVE claim, which you can't.
And your alien example proves nothing.
You can't prove that aliens do or do not exist.
Well, if you're going to play it that way, here's my "proof" of the negative claim:

By your own admission, you haven't made the affirmative claim that there is a legitimate governmental reason to deny civil marriage based solely on gender.

Clearly, you are unable to do so. If you were able, you would have.

No one else has provided a legitimate governmental reason to deny civil marriage based solely on gender.

Therefore, no such legitimate governmental reason exists.

There. Proved it.

Your turn.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#124 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
I never made an AFFIRMATIVE claim.
I said you need to prove your NEGATIVE claim, which you can't.
And your alien example proves nothing.
You can't prove that aliens do or do not exist.
This is a simple equal rights issue.
A man has the right to marry a woman, a woman should have that same right.
A woman has the right to marry a man, a man should have that same right.
Why are you against equal rights?
Junior Esquire

United States

#125 Oct 8, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you're going to play it that way, here's my "proof" of the negative claim:
By your own admission, you haven't made the affirmative claim that there is a legitimate governmental reason to deny civil marriage based solely on gender.
Clearly, you are unable to do so. If you were able, you would have.
No one else has provided a legitimate governmental reason to deny civil marriage based solely on gender.
Therefore, no such legitimate governmental reason exists.
There. Proved it.
Your turn.
The fact that proof of alien existence has not yet been found does not prove that they do not exist.
Similarly, the fact that clear evidence has not yet manifest that SSM is harmful to society does not mean that no harm exists.
On another thread, I used the example of the use of atomic bombs on Japan during WW2, and how the several hundred thousand deaths due to radiation were unforeseen.
SSM is too new on the timeline of humanity for any harm to foreseen.

But since you are putting me to task, i'll disclose what my intuition tells me-
SSM in it's low-scale present form, probably is, for the most part, between committed couples. However, if allowed to grow to a large scale, possibly due to granted economic benefits, the makeup of SSM would change from a "commited" type of marriage to a more "open" type of marriage, more suitable to the homosexual lifestyle.
Knowing human nature, this "open" type of marriage would then flow to the heterosexual side, completely eliminating "traditional marriage", meaning mainly, the loss of a stable environment for raising children.
This wouldn't happen overnight, it might take 100 years, and the process would certainly not be reversible, and probably not recognized until too late.
So that is the likely mechanism by which SSM would destroy society.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#126 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that proof of alien existence has not yet been found does not prove that they do not exist.
Similarly, the fact that clear evidence has not yet manifest that SSM is harmful to society does not mean that no harm exists.
So -- by your very same logic -- since you can't prove that a unicorn doesn't live on the dark side of Saturn's rings, then you can't say it doesn't.

Have you ever read Bertrand Russell? Ever heard of him?
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>On another thread, I used the example of the use of atomic bombs on Japan during WW2, and how the several hundred thousand deaths due to radiation were unforeseen.
SSM is too new on the timeline of humanity for any harm to foreseen.
By that logic, it should never be allowed. Nothing new or different should ever be allowed. No change should ever be instituted, rights should never be extended, and all things should stay as they are. Forever.

The history of this country would have been vastly different if we followed such an extremist course. Thank goodness we ignore advice like yours.
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>But since you are putting me to task, i'll disclose what my intuition tells me-
So we're left with your "intuition"? Well, that sounds like it'll be persuasive.
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>SSM in it's low-scale present form, probably is, for the most part, between committed couples. However, if allowed to grow to a large scale, possibly due to granted economic benefits, the makeup of SSM would change from a "commited" type of marriage to a more "open" type of marriage, more suitable to the homosexual lifestyle.
Ah, the "homosexual lifestyle" trope. Well here's the deal... you can't criticize gay people for their profligate so-called "homosexual lifestyle" and at the same time deny them access to the very civil institution that you claim to be the primary stabilizing force in society.

That's called hypocritical.
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>Knowing human nature, this "open" type of marriage would then flow to the heterosexual side, completely eliminating "traditional marriage", meaning mainly, the loss of a stable environment for raising children.
I'm so impressed by your obvious knowledge of human nature... not. So, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, it would eventually CAUSE heterosexuals to stop marrying and raising children in stable families? This would be gay people's fault? All this based on "intuition"?
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>This wouldn't happen overnight, it might take 100 years, and the process would certainly not be reversible, and probably not recognized until too late.
So that is the likely mechanism by which SSM would destroy society.
"Likely"? And you're basing all this on your "intuition" rather than evidence?

And you criticize MY logic?

You are one piece of work.

One simple question, based on your professed concern for raising children in stable families:

Given that hundreds of thousands of children are being raised RIGHT NOW, TODAY by same-sex couples; and that there is NO EVIDENCE of any detrimental effects on these children...

what is the legitimate governmental interest in denying to these children the exact same protections and benefits that civil marriage affords their peers being raised by opposite-sex couples?
Junior Esquire

United States

#127 Oct 9, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
So -- by your very same logic -- since you can't prove that a unicorn doesn't live on the dark side of Saturn's rings, then you can't say it doesn't.
Have you ever read Bertrand Russell? Ever heard of him?
<quoted text>
By that logic, it should never be allowed. Nothing new or different should ever be allowed. No change should ever be instituted, rights should never be extended, and all things should stay as they are. Forever.
The history of this country would have been vastly different if we followed such an extremist course. Thank goodness we ignore advice like yours.
<quoted text>
So we're left with your "intuition"? Well, that sounds like it'll be persuasive.
<quoted text>
Ah, the "homosexual lifestyle" trope. Well here's the deal... you can't criticize gay people for their profligate so-called "homosexual lifestyle" and at the same time deny them access to the very civil institution that you claim to be the primary stabilizing force in society.
That's called hypocritical.
<quoted text>
I'm so impressed by your obvious knowledge of human nature... not. So, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, it would eventually CAUSE heterosexuals to stop marrying and raising children in stable families? This would be gay people's fault? All this based on "intuition"?
<quoted text>
"Likely"? And you're basing all this on your "intuition" rather than evidence?
And you criticize MY logic?
You are one piece of work.
One simple question, based on your professed concern for raising children in stable families:
Given that hundreds of thousands of children are being raised RIGHT NOW, TODAY by same-sex couples; and that there is NO EVIDENCE of any detrimental effects on these children...
what is the legitimate governmental interest in denying to these children the exact same protections and benefits that civil marriage affords their peers being raised by opposite-sex couples?
"Given that hundreds of thousands of children are being raised RIGHT NOW, TODAY by same-sex couples; and that there is NO EVIDENCE of any detrimental effects on these children..."
Again, "NO EVIDENCE" does not mean that there are no "detrimental effects", i'm saying that it is too early to tell.

"what is the legitimate governmental interest in denying to these children the exact same protections and benefits that civil marriage affords their peers being raised by opposite-sex couples?"
Back up a step. Same-sex parenting should not be happening in the first place. And again, don't give me your "no evidence" crap. It's too soon for the ill effects of same-sex parenting to manifest. Give it a 100 years.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#128 Oct 9, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
The Lord invented sex simply for procreation.
It was mankind who repurposed it into "Sport F**king", noted with an eye-roll from the Lord.
The gays crossed the line however, when they repurposed the human wrecktum as an erogenous zone.
Never heard of Bonobos?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How Franklin Graham took the reins from his leg... 43 min youll shoot your ... 27
do you remember your first gay experience?? (Apr '11) 1 hr Grown up now 9
News This homophobic magistrate was just paid $325,0... 2 hr Wondering 45
News The Long Island Gay & Lesbian Film Festival to ... 2 hr Wondering 35
News 'Teen Mom 2's' David Eason fired by MTV after a... 2 hr Wondering 21
News Man charged with threatening Riverview church o... 6 hr Rainbow Kid 71
News Same-sex couple allegedly told they don't 'mirr... 6 hr Xstain Spot Remover 11
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 12 hr Snookie 27,396
More from around the web