Liberals attack Scalia for argument about homosexuality!/FrankConniff/status/278532760958803968

During a lecture at Princeton University yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed the topics of homosexuality and gay marriage. During the question-and-answer portion, a self-identified gay student asked Justice Scalia why he has equated laws banning sodomy with those prohibiting murder. Scalia responded as follows:

“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd.’ If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

Scalia added that he does not equate sodomy with murder but draws a parallel between the bans on both inasmuch as both laws entail moral judgments. The nuances don’t matter to liberals, however, because Justice Scalia said the words “homosexuality” and “murder” in the same sentence, so he must mean they are morally equivalent. They took to Twitter to voice their displeasure and the mainstream media joined in as well.

Impeachment. Anyone in mind? MT @nartist: Are there any circumstances under which a SCOTUS justice may be removed or forced out?

— Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) December 11, 2012


— Roseanne Barr (@TheRealRoseanne) December 11, 2012

SCOTUS: Scalia on the defensive over gay rights

— Domenico Montanaro (@DomenicoNBC) December 11, 2012

Equating Homosexuality with Murder? Scalia needs to recuse himself from the DOMA deliberations. As an impartial jus…

— David Radovanovic (@nywebdesign) December 11, 2012

IMPEACH THE JERK – Justice Scalia Defends Comparing Homosexuality To Murder

— Mugwumpus (@tinyMugwump) December 11, 2012

I’m going to kill Antonin Scalia…I mean make sex to his ass…I mean, wait, murder + gay sex are the same thing, right?

— Diane Hall (@Dian8Keaton) December 11, 2012

Scalia Makes Legal Comparison Between Homosexuality, Murder

— ABC News (@ABC) December 11, 2012

For the record, it appears that Justice Scalia is actually making a philosophical/logical argument about the basis of society’s morality. Essentially, he is asking: If people use their morals in one case, why can’t they use them in other cases? But soundbites are easier to attack. Let’s continue.

Foul stench in NJ yesterday was due to Justice Scalia’s odious comments about homosexuality, not the usual pollutants…

— scary lawyerguy (@scarylawyerguy) December 11, 2012

Fat Tony Scalia – “moral feelings”! WTF? These words are found nowhere in the contstitution. via @huffpostgay

— Puesto Loco (@LocoPuesto) December 11, 2012

All of the sudden, liberals are pure textualists.

#Scalia equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.People concent to sodomey, not murder! Get a grip a-hole

— Steven Krauss (@krausssj) December 11, 2012

Scalia is ignorant & shouldn’t be on SCOTUS. If the Constitution wasn’t a living document, we would still have slavery. It changes w/ time.

— Jaswal (@Jimi_We) December 11, 2012

I understand the technical ‘logic’ Scalia was employing re: homosexuality/murder, but he’s still a smug bigot dinosaur.

— Jordan Zakarin (@jordanzakarin) December 11, 2012

Well, that’s a start.

Reductio ad absurdum =  “In logic, a method employed to disprove an argument by illustrating how it leads to an absurd consequence.”

We couldn’t find a single tweet challenging Scalia’s logic. Instead, there were hundreds of personal attacks and a lot of questionable assumptions about how Scalia will vote on the Defense of Marriage Act. The “moral” of the story is: It doesn’t matter what you say; it only matters what liberals think you said.

Read more:

Leave a Reply