Scalia says outlawing “homosexual sodomy” is a no-brainer

  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Oct 05, 2012 4:41 PM GMT
    Scalia says outlawing “homosexual sodomy” is a no-brainer


    http://www.salon.com/2012/10/05/scalia_says_outlawing_abortion_and_homosexual_sodomy_are_judicial_no_brainers/
  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Oct 05, 2012 6:01 PM GMT

    Antonin Scalia: Death Penalty, Abortion, 'Homosexual Sodomy' Are Easy Cases














    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/antonin-scalia-abortion-gay-rights_n_1942068.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2012 6:33 PM GMT
    Is there a practice like metta meditation where you wish a painful death on someone?
  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Oct 05, 2012 7:34 PM GMT
    Scalia Says ‘Easy’ To Outlaw Gay Marriage, AKA ‘Homosexual Sodomy’

    "As Bill Keller pointed out in the New York Times earlier this year, Romney “is committed to filling any Supreme Court vacancies with Scalias.”"

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-unprecedented-scalia-says-easy-to-outlaw-gay-marriage-aka-homosexual-sodomy/politics/2012/10/05/50378
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14303

    Oct 06, 2012 3:16 PM GMT
    Putting tape over Justice Scalia's mouth is a no brainer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 3:24 PM GMT
    Hoping he chokes on his ham sandwhich is a no brainer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 3:39 PM GMT
    But but but......all the nice Conservative gay men on here have assured me that gay rights aren't really that important. They say that things like the economy and taxes are more important. So let's not worry about being executed for being gay. Right? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 7:39 PM GMT
    TigerMM said
    Scruffypup saidBut but but......all the nice Conservative gay men on here have assured me that gay rights aren't really that important. They say that things like the economy and taxes are more important. So let's not worry about being executed for being gay. Right? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yes, if the nice conservative men had been at Stonewall, they would have held gay men down so the police could beat them...then testified against them in court.


    Being conservative and being a self-hater/closet case are two completely different things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 7:40 PM GMT
    metta8 saidScalia says outlawing “homosexual sodomy” is a no-brainer


    http://www.salon.com/2012/10/05/scalia_says_outlawing_abortion_and_homosexual_sodomy_are_judicial_no_brainers/


    So my real question is, if homosexual sodomy is illegal, will heterosexual sodomy also be illegal? If so, here are an awful lot of straight couples who will be breaking the law fairly regularly...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 7:51 PM GMT
    Yeah, but "outlawing" homasexul sodomication.....*SQUEALS!!!*

    Makes mah titties blush.......icon_redface.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Oct 06, 2012 7:55 PM GMT
    redsoxfan791 said
    TigerMM said
    Scruffypup saidBut but but......all the nice Conservative gay men on here have assured me that gay rights aren't really that important. They say that things like the economy and taxes are more important. So let's not worry about being executed for being gay. Right? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yes, if the nice conservative men had been at Stonewall, they would have held gay men down so the police could beat them...then testified against them in court.


    Being conservative and being a self-hater/closet case are two completely different things.





    werd
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Oct 06, 2012 7:57 PM GMT
    The best way to ensure Scalia's views aren't carrying the day is to make sure Obama is reelected. Then nature will take its course and someone more rational than Nino will take his seat. But if Romney is elected, be prepared for more Scalia clones like Alito, aka Scalito, on the bench, and Lawrence v. Texas may well be overturned, together with Roe v. Wade, maybe even Griswold v. Connecticut and a lot of other precedents that establish a private sphere of decision-making in which the government has no place.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Oct 06, 2012 7:57 PM GMT
    rnch said
    redsoxfan791 said
    TigerMM said
    Scruffypup saidBut but but......all the nice Conservative gay men on here have assured me that gay rights aren't really that important. They say that things like the economy and taxes are more important. So let's not worry about being executed for being gay. Right? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yes, if the nice conservative men had been at Stonewall, they would have held gay men down so the police could beat them...then testified against them in court.


    Being conservative and being a self-hater/closet case are two completely different things.





    agree
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Oct 06, 2012 8:31 PM GMT
    Whipmagic saidThe best way to ensure Scalia's views aren't carrying the day is to make sure Obama is reelected. Then nature will take its course and someone more rational than Nino will take his seat. But if Romney is elected, be prepared for more Scalia clones like Alito, aka Scalito, on the bench, and Lawrence v. Texas may well be overturned, together with Roe v. Wade, maybe even Griswold v. Connecticut and a lot of other precedents that establish a private sphere of decision-making in which the government has no place.


    This is exactly right.
    One of the reasons Conservatives love Scalia is because he hates gay Americans and thinks they are less than human.
    His stated goal here is imprisoning gay people.... i.e. he thinks everyone on this website should be in prison.

    This is the kind of dangerous bigot that Mitt Romney will nominate to the Supreme Court if he is elected.

  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 06, 2012 8:51 PM GMT
    Whipmagic saidThe best way to ensure Scalia's views aren't carrying the day is to make sure Obama is reelected. Then nature will take its course and someone more rational than Nino will take his seat. But if Romney is elected, be prepared for more Scalia clones like Alito, aka Scalito, on the bench, and Lawrence v. Texas may well be overturned, together with Roe v. Wade, maybe even Griswold v. Connecticut and a lot of other precedents that establish a private sphere of decision-making in which the government has no place.


    Smart guy. +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 8:53 PM GMT
    I knew Scalia looked familiar:

    thunder.fury_.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 9:01 PM GMT
    While I tend to be a Constitutional originalist like Scalia, I actually despise his thought processes and decisions. He tries to pass his decisions as rational, but really they're awfully political motivated. Quite frankly, he's a brilliant man from an intelligence perspective, and he uses those abilities into coercing others into believing his actions and decisions have any sort of bearing in logical thought. It's a methodology that has served him well throughout his career; thus earning him a spot as a juror on the highest, most esteemed court in the country. While some of his decisions have been spot on from a strict Constitutional perspective, most lack a basic understanding of the evolution of law.

    All of that said, I've done some thinking about this article and Scalia's views on "homosexual sodomy," which we must assume is different from "heterosexual sodomy." In the article, he's specifically quoted as saying:

    "Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”

    Technically, its true, but what does he mean? To figure it out, we must first think how he would think--as the strictest of Constitutional originalists.

    Scalia mentions that homosexuality was criminal in every state for 200 years. This is significant as no laws specifically existed either Constitutionally Congressionally. Without either, it would be inappropriate for Scalia to rule in favor of homosexual sodomy being Constitutional. In the most technical sense, sexual activities are not covered under the U.S. Constitution, although "freedom of expression" under the 1st Amendment could be logically stretched that way to make it work. Scalia won't.

    Instead, Scalia will justify his decision based on 10th Amendment that grants all powers not enumerated by the federal government to the states. By ruling against the Constitutionality of homosexual sodomy he will be saying it's a state's rights issue; thus upholding any and all sodomy laws within the individual states.

    Really, it's an interesting argument. I don't agree with Scalia's manner of thinking on this subject. I think he's manipulating the Constitution in the very same way he criticizes so-called liberal activist judges for doing so.

    Again, I don't agree with his viewpoint on this subject. I'm only explaining his likely line of thinking.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Oct 06, 2012 9:03 PM GMT
    Scruffypup saidBut but but......all the nice Conservative gay men on here have assured me that gay rights aren't really that important. They say that things like the economy and taxes are more important. So let's not worry about being executed for being gay. Right?


    No, actually the "nice Conservative gay men on here" have the ability to see the broad picture and not let biased moronic sites like salon.com scare us into some tizzy by putting words in Justice Scalia's mouth that he never said...let alone turn it into a misleading over-reaching headline for shock value. I am not even the slightest bit concerned that "Homosexual Sodomy" or "Sodomy in General" will be outlawed by The Supreme Court -- EVER! I don't care WHO is sitting on the court. Not going to happen. At no time in that interview did Justice Scalia say that it was a "No Brainer" that this would be criminalized. He may actually be referring to them as "easy cases" because based on our constitution, not his own personal views, the Supreme court will likely side with gays, not against them, at least related to the issue of "sodomy". So, paint us "nice Conservative gay men on here" any way you like if it makes you feel better, but just because some of us aren't so quick to push the panic button doesn't make us clueless, self-loathing, gay haters, or any of the names you nice, open-minded, accepting liberals like to call us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 9:09 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Scruffypup saidBut but but......all the nice Conservative gay men on here have assured me that gay rights aren't really that important. They say that things like the economy and taxes are more important. So let's not worry about being executed for being gay. Right?


    No, actually the "nice Conservative gay men on here" have the ability to see the broad picture and not let biased moronic sites like salon.com scare us into some tizzy by putting words in Justice Scalia's mouth that he never said...let alone turn it into a misleading over-reaching headline for shock value. I am not even the slightest bit concerned that "Homosexual Sodomy" or "Sodomy in General" will be outlawed by The Supreme Court -- EVER! I don't care WHO is sitting on the court. Not going to happen. At no time in that interview did Justice Scalia say that it was a "No Brainer" that this would be criminalized. He may actually be referring to them as "easy cases" because based on our constitution, not his own personal views, the Supreme court will likely side with gays, not against them, at least related to the issue of "sodomy". So, paint us "nice Conservative gay men on here" any way you like if it makes you feel better, but just because some of us aren't so quick to push the panic button doesn't make us clueless, self-loathing, gay haters, or any of the names you nice, open-minded, accepting liberals like to call us.


    The difference is that you've convinced yourself that having X amount of money and a certain amount of professional prestige will protect you, so you don't need the Law.

    The rest of us just aren't that naive.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Oct 06, 2012 9:16 PM GMT
    Elusium said
    The difference is that you've convinced yourself that having X amount of money and a certain amount of professional prestige will protect you, so you don't need the Law.


    Nothing could be further from the truth, but nice try
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 9:24 PM GMT
    All of your arguments come down to $$$$, and you never fail to side with the power structure. That's the Homocon credo: if I pull in enough dough and run with the right crowds, I'm legitimized.

    The big picture you miss is that most Conservative voters believe that we all have tons of money, high-ranking political ties, and jobs in media and entertainment, so when we push for rights under the law, they're "special" rights, not "equal" ones.

    When you take that reality into account, your whole life model seems rather misguided and pointless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 9:25 PM GMT
    Helios69 saidI knew Scalia looked familiar:

    thunder.fury_.jpg


    You are my hero, Helios!

    Jack Burton: May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 9:44 PM GMT
    Apex0111 said
    Helios69 saidI knew Scalia looked familiar:

    thunder.fury_.jpg


    You are my hero, Helios!

    Jack Burton: May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.


    Amen to that.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 06, 2012 11:54 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Elusium said
    The difference is that you've convinced yourself that having X amount of money and a certain amount of professional prestige will protect you, so you don't need the Law.


    Nothing could be further from the truth, but nice try


    No, Elusium was exactly correct. Everybody has caught on to the unscrupulousness of the house gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2012 12:37 AM GMT
    It is a constant velleity of the Left that they are not of the murderous authoritarian type, or tripe, and that their heroes are not the moral equivalents of concentration camp guards.