tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post8035619912090456452..comments2024-01-23T17:14:04.067-05:00Comments on Jaltcoh: A few points about Justice Scalia's comments on sexual orientation and murderJohn Althouse Cohenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-26554938313866137982012-12-13T15:08:59.352-05:002012-12-13T15:08:59.352-05:00I interpret Jaltcoh's phrase 'I interpret ...I interpret Jaltcoh's phrase 'I interpret Scalia's phrase "moral feelings against" to refer to disgust' to refer to another argument besides the one Scalia is making in order to show it is wrong. The article explicitly states that Scalia was addressing whether "legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral"; he was not addressing things that might be icky-poo.<br /><br />Also, Scalia in his opinion was addressing the constitutionality of the law; the question was whether the law was constitutional. The questions was not "whether mere disgust can justify a law that would otherwise not seem to have a rational justification", as you state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-67026138266449252582012-12-12T10:06:14.642-05:002012-12-12T10:06:14.642-05:00Overtaken by events, in other words, what Lawrence...Overtaken by events, in other words, what <i>Lawrence</i> hath wrought. Scalia knew well what he was talking about.<br /><br />http://www.gainesville.com/article/20121211/ARTICLES/121219923/1034?p=2&tc=pg<br /><br /><i>Lawyers representing a Marion County man accused of sexual activity with a miniature donkey have filed a motion asking a judge to declare the Florida statute banning sexual activities with animals unconstitutional.</i><br /><br /><i>...the statute doesn't require that the state prove any harm or injury to the animal "or any proof of the sexual activity being non-consensual."<br /><br />"Therefore, the only possible rational basis for the statute is a moral objection to sexual acts considered deviant or downright ‘disgusting,'?" they wrote.<br /><br />Using religion or the overall consensus of the public that sexual activity with an animal is wrong as the basis of a law is unjustified and bars Romero's personal liberties, the attorneys argued.<br /><br />"The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties," the attorneys wrote. "If the statute were to require sexual conduct with animals to be nonconsensual or to cause injury in order to be a crime, then perhaps the State would have a rational basis and legitimate state interest in enforcement."</i><br /><br />Meanwhile it continues to be illegal for consenting adults to negotiate their hourly wage. Some things are just too perverted.<br /><br />Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-7242726319663862212012-12-11T23:01:47.772-05:002012-12-11T23:01:47.772-05:00De gustibus non est disputandum
I think it highly...<i>De gustibus non est disputandum</i><br /><br />I think it highly unlikely Scalia is ignorant of that Latin maxim nor is he unaware of word origins. If he'd meant disgust he would have used it. <br /><br />Scalia is old school morals is all. I think he sees a balance in opposite sex partnering which same sex pairings lack. Also, he probably could parse the difference between equality and equivalency. chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.com