Again, offering fairness where it may not be deserved… He was not making an argument so much as rebutting one, that we ought not to legislate morality. Which is a silly argument, gleefully quashed because he is totally a dick.
Wish there was such a thing as “brainwashing”. Need one right about now…
Well, I don’t like it, but at least it’s being done right after a major election, rather than right before one.
Translation: “BAAWWWWWWWWWWW”
What the fuck is all this right-wing terror about radical Islam about? Are there even any Muslims living in Irving?
It’s the secret radical Muslims they’re worried about. Since they’re secret they could be anywhere - especially in places where they aren’t.
That really only flies if you believe that there are moral questions raised by homosexual activity above and beyond that raised by heterosexual activity. Morality implies conscious action and choice. A man and a woman who have sex aren’t “choosing” to be heterosexual, they are heterosexuals choosing to have sex. I don’t believe one chooses to be homosexual, the way one chooses to be a shoplifter or a murderer. If there are moral concerns regarding sex, they should be equally applicable, regardless of sexual orientation.
Grover Norquist, in a matter of a few stupid sentences, manages to:
But there are perfectly logical or at least rational to object to murder on moral grounds, or at least in an objective pragmatic impact on society and human behaviour way - the most obvious of which being, murder’s rarely consensual. Somewhat on the harmful side also. Same goes for shoplifting - whether or not shoplifting is a choice or a biological compulsion (klepto is a thing, after all) it’s still harmful to the shop.
What’s the harm in consensual homosexual sex ?
Or is Scalia saying that the *only *reason people object to murder (and by extension, why there are laws against murder) is that people feel, or god says, it’s bad ?
All true, and no disagreement worthy of the word. But “Fat Tony” Scalia was speaking to very, very narrow terms. In my personal opinion, he is a dick. And one tactic of a dick is address an issue in the narrowest possible terms and pretend that those terms encompass the wider argument. He knows better than that, which is why he gave forth his adorable little lesson on reductio ad absurdum. He’s just about the cutest Supreme we’ve ever had!
But I disagree with Tony. A law that exists *only because of morality *should not be a law. His analogy fails unless he can cite another law that exists only because it enforces morality, and not because it infringes on someone else’s rights.
He wasn’t just doing reductio ad absurdum, he was clouding the issue.
*And *being a dick.
Eighth Amendment?
Oh, fuck you for making me think about this. I really need to think about if “cruel and unusual punishment” restrictions have any benefit besides being “the moral thing to do.”
Fuck me? Fuck me? Hey, you’re the guy making us defend Scalia. 
Hey, where’s the guy who’s the poster child for legalistic sophistry and complex obfuscation? Should be here by now, old Whats-his-face. You know, that guy?
He only comes if you stand alone in a dark room and chant “voter ID laws are evil.”
Where do you think we get these notions of rights in the first place?
Game theory. Specifically, maximizing personal utility in a society wherein you recognize that some members of the society are much more powerful than you are.
Historically, I know that’s wrong, but I think that underlies the reason for laws in a free society.
**Kobal2 **hinted at the same. *Laws *should protect victims. *Morality *protects the perpetrator from being ‘bad.’
Prohibition?
bup’s got my thinking in one. Which is a rare thing, as I tend to be clear as a shovel and straight as a corkscrew - so kudos to him :).
Now, I don’t claim to know what the hell the Founders or any 18th century philosopher for that matter were thinking or how they came about to their “self-evident” inferences, but the truth is that them there rights wot they held to be self-evident ? Demonstrably weren’t all that self-evident a hundred years, two hundred years, two thousand years prior.
Which means (to me) that they reached the idea of these rights from observing their current environment and making inferences from it, rather than being blinded by self-evident truths. There was nothing in their times’ morality objecting to cruel punishment, or quartering soldiers, or separating church from state ; quite the opposite. It was, at the time, the “moral” thing to do. Crime deserves abject punishment. Wars must be won. God lords over all.
The Founders disagreed based on evidence that this shit was not working. They defied conventional, traditional morality and created something new ; a new way to look and consider things. Well, not entirely new really, but they made it more locally popular anyway. And I’d like to think they based their thinking on consequentialist arguments, rather than their “guts” or their confessors’ thoughts on the matter. It’s “bad” to quarter soldiers because in the end it creates more pain than not winning the war. It’s bad to torture criminals because they might be innocent, because the fear of cruelty might drive them to further desperate acts, and because it instils blood lust throughout society. It’s bad to mix up church and state because you get blue laws, and crimes that can’t be proven because they infringe in the spiritual, and because you jolly well gotta render unto Caesar in the end.
And it’s bad to murder somebody because precious few people *want *to die and the Golden Rule has nothing to do with religion.
None of these arguments apply to homosexuality or gay marriage. The only “strong” ones that do are “God says EWWWW” and “We’ve never done it this way so let’s not do it this way”. Neither of which are particularly convincing to the modern mind. Nevermind being grounds for laws.
“The Founders” of what? If you mean the founding fathers of the US, they were mostly cribbing off Locke and Paine, who were naturalists, not positivists. Ultimately, all the stuff that we have today was the result of abstract, often arbitrary moral philosophy. We keep it because it works; we got it because somebody thought it was just.
True enough I suppose, but *just *and *moral *have a very distant relationship. And I don’t know about you, but I’d be wary about someone penning a law (or in the case of Supreme Justices, canning or upholding one) based on *moral *rather than on just. Although full disclosure, *just *doesn’t really do it for me either, not on its own at least. One thing *just *and *moral *have in common: both are extremely subjective and sometimes quite arbitrary.