US Supreme Court Justice Scalia: homosexuality is similar to bestiality - Polidicks

Scalia is doing that disingenuous thing where he pretends he doesn't understand the question. The question has nothing to do with what's morally acceptable or not, or how can we be morally against one thing and not this other, it's why do you equate homosexuality with these specific acts(murder/bestiality)? He could have compared homosexuality with many other activities to make his point, but he specifically chose the most inflammatory comparisons.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;39058960]Scalia is doing that disingenuous thing where he pretends he doesn't understand the question. The question has nothing to do with what's morally acceptable or not, or how can we be morally against one thing and not this other, it's why do you equate homosexuality with these specific acts(murder/bestiality)? He could have compared homosexuality with many other activities to make his point, but he specifically chose the most inflammatory comparisons.[/QUOTE] I don't think he "equates" them. Rather, he's just saying, if you can't make laws against nasty thing A (homosexuality), then you can't make laws against super-hyper-nasty thing B (bestiality).

I quote a comedy show: "Whatever would happen if we allow homosexuality, is beastiality next?" "If you can't distinguish between a romantic relation ship between two men and sexual acts with a dog, I recommend you never get a dog."

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39058717]Hm. Tell me what part of the constitution forbids the government from banning heaters in homes?[/QUOTE] The first amendment. But of course, they could just say "but it's for interstate commerce reasons!" and the Supreme Court would say "oh, okay" and sit there like fucking retards as they nearly always do.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39059198]I don't think he "equates" them. Rather, he's just saying, if you can't make laws against nasty thing A (homosexuality), then you can't make laws against super-hyper-nasty thing B (bestiality).[/QUOTE] You can't really compare the two because you can easily prove that an act of homosexual sex is consensual, unlike in bestiality which is either extremely difficult or impossible to prove consent. And I use the word consent very loosely in regards to bestiality.

I wonder if people like this wake up in the morning and ask themselves in the mirror, "How can I be a bigger jackass today?"

[quote]“I’m surprised you weren’t persuaded.”[/quote] maybe because it's a load of shit you asshole

I find it a bit shocking that a supreme court justice doesn't find it unconstitutional to disallow consenting adults from engaging in mutually rewarding, and personally/societally harmless relationships with other consenting adults. The American government is painfully slow to adapt to changing times.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;39059857]The first amendment. But of course, they could just say "but it's for interstate commerce reasons!" and the Supreme Court would say "oh, okay" and sit there like fucking retards as they nearly always do.[/QUOTE] What the fuck lol the first amendment What in [I]shit[/I] are you smoking?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;39059996]slow to adapt to changing times.[/QUOTE] That's kind of what the idea behind fundamentalism is.

I like fucking guys but when there's no guys I just casually fuck my dog, y'know?

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39058717]Hm. Tell me what part of the constitution forbids the government from banning heaters in homes?[/QUOTE] (It doesn't) :v: No where in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights are the words "homosexuality" "marriage" or even "man and a woman" brought up. Ever. To do the nasty and sidetrack for a minute: Marriage is a legal contract as far as the government is concerned. For some reason or another, people have become convoluted and tried to turn it into some weird holy thing. It's not. In a very rough sense, it's a process binding two people. If we have a separation of church and state (that is, keeping out religious concepts/laws that cannot be justifiably grounded in government); then there should be no question of gay marriage to the government. Why people are absolutely mortified about homosexuality deluding and poisoning the holy act of marriage is very well beyond anything I can grasp. People have been marrying for non-religious and non-love reasons since the dawn of time. And even further, we seem to fully accept divorce and the capability for people (let's say celebrities, especially) to go through the process of marriage and divorce an infinite number of times. Yet, when two humans of the same gender under the most loving and benign of circumstances want to officially and legally contract a union between themselves, people raise pitchforks and torches. It's just damned silly.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39058752]There's nothing wrong with raping animals?[/QUOTE] Why is this getting rated dumb? Do you guys really think that it's possible to get real sexual consent from an animal?

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39060100]Why is this getting rated dumb? Do you guys really think that it's possible to get real sexual consent from an animal?[/QUOTE] If they say humans think of sex once ever six seconds, animals think about it every second. Especially dogs. Ever notice how they hump your leg all the time? Just "reposition" yourself.... and, well, consent given.

[QUOTE=PeejsterM;39060031]That's kind of what the idea behind fundamentalism is.[/QUOTE] It's more to do with the actual structure of the American government, than anything. With its many different levels of checks and balances, and its focus of power split evenly across three individual branches of government, it was intentionally designed to be slow and unwieldy. The thought process behind this construction was an inherent fear that the government would ever be able to claim too much power, as the drafters of this method of government were of course recently made independent from a sovereignty that could claim [I]all[/I] the power over its subjects. The positive side of our system of government is that its very, very stable, making it extremely difficult to overturn established systems, meaning that once we've all finally agreed on the right course of action, it's the course we stick to. The obvious downside to this, is that actually [I]establishing[/I] those systems requires a huge amount of effort and a whole lot of time. It's not so much fundamentalism as it is intentional inefficiency. Stability and protection from large shifts of power, at a cost of much slower reaction times to a world that is changing at an increasingly rapid rate. We will see things like homosexuality approved and protected by the US constitution, but as long as there remains a group of people with any kind of foothold on the opposition of a certain movement, such as a large contingent of the Republican party in regards to homosexuality, it will not be a quick thing. BUT, the conservative party has been pretty steadily losing ground on the gay rights movement over the last thirty years or so, as far as that goes, and we're already seeing the telltale signs that the government is finally being forced to react to the demands of the people at large. People like Scalia will soon buckle simply because there's no other choice.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39060119]If they say humans think of sex once ever six seconds, animals think about it every second. They demonstrate their consent by humping your leg.[/QUOTE] An 8 year old human child can verbally tell a 30 year old that it's ok to have sex. Doesn't mean we actually consider it consent because a young child is not mentally capable of giving sexual consent. I don't see how an animal that isn't intelligent enough to verbally communicate is any better.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39060173]An 8 year old human child can verbally tell a 30 year old that it's ok to have sex. Doesn't mean we actually consider it consent because a young child is not mentally capable of giving sexual consent. I don't see how an animal that isn't intelligent enough to verbally communicate is any better.[/QUOTE] Arew you forming a slippery slope argument in a thread about how dumb slippery slope arguments are?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39060204]Arew you forming a slippery slope argument in a thread about how dumb slippery slope arguments are?[/QUOTE] This isn't a slippery slope. I am saying animals are not mentally capable of giving sexual consent to humans. Hell in a lot of cases they aren't even really capable of giving consent to each other.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39060225]This isn't a slippery slope. I am saying animals are not mentally capable of giving sexual consent to humans. Hell in a lot of cases they aren't even really capable of giving consent to each other.[/QUOTE] So how do we deal with animals raping animals?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39060255]So how do we deal with animals raping animals?[/QUOTE] Very few species in the animal kingdom actually have sex to enjoy it. For most its just reproduction.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39060255]So how do we deal with animals raping animals?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying we deal with it. I'm just pointing out that a lot of cases of sex between animals lacks any consent. Also when has facepunch started having this many people justifying bestiality?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39060204]Arew you forming a slippery slope argument in a thread about how dumb slippery slope arguments are?[/QUOTE] no he's saying consent isn't as simple as you simplified it to being.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39060298]I'm not saying we deal with it. I'm just pointing out that a lot of cases of sex between animals lacks any consent. Also when has facepunch started having this many people justifying bestiality?[/QUOTE] I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time around any animals. Your entire argument is conjecture, you basically are just saying "I'm right because I clearly am." And then you directly contradict yourself saying "a lot of cases of sex between animals lacks any consent." So now you DO believe there are SOME instances of inter-species sex that is consensual, which you said was impossible a few posts back. Who are you trying to impress with your argument, exactly?

[QUOTE=Ybbats;39060556]I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time around any animals. Your entire argument is conjecture, you basically are just saying "I'm right because I clearly am." And then you directly contradict yourself saying "a lot of cases of sex between animals lacks any consent." So now you DO believe there are SOME instances of inter-species sex that is consensual, which you said was impossible a few posts back. Who are you trying to impress with your argument, exactly?[/QUOTE] I never mentioned cases of inter-species sex. I was talking about cases of two animals. But please by all means tell me exactly how animals can give sexual consent to a human. You're apparently the expert here, not me. Oh and by the way I live on a horse farm, so I spend every day around animals.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39060298]I'm not saying we deal with it. I'm just pointing out that a lot of cases of sex between animals lacks any consent. Also when has facepunch started having this many people justifying bestiality?[/QUOTE] it's about as brave as defending pedophilia but maybe these brave little warriors just really want to feel okay about sticking their dicks in their pets idk

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39060900]I wonder how much consent an animal gives to being hunted, eaten, caged and or being property?[/QUOTE] where are you even trying to go with this

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39060900]I wonder how much consent an animal gives to being hunted, eaten, caged and or being property?[/QUOTE] I wonder how depraved you have to be to want to fuck animals

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39060652]I never mentioned cases of inter-species sex. I was talking about cases of two animals. But please by all means tell me exactly how animals can give sexual consent to a human. You're apparently the expert here, not me. Oh and by the way I live on a horse farm, so I spend every day around animals.[/QUOTE] Well if you spend so much time around animals, one would expect you to understand animals better. But that isn't always the case, so I'll just assume you're ignorant or stupid and not really one to really pay attention to the world around you. LEGALLY, it's impossible for animals to give consent, they'd have to verbally indicate or write it down, and we all know they can't do that. Want to make that argument, you'll win, but not against me because that is obviously true and I understand it perfectly. What I seem to know that you don't is that there is a world outside the world of legal and bureaucratic bullshit that people who are raised like you don't seem to understand. Zoophiles don't rape animals, some people do, but in my experience people who associate with the term 'zoophile' generally don't. If it's really so hard for you to believe that some people out there can understand animals better than someone like you who probably doesn't even think twice about any creature other than themselves, I really don't think there is anything I could possibly say to convince you, but that doesn't make you right, especially when you refuse to bring ANY evidence to the discussion whatsoever and rather just choose to judge anyone who might have sex with an animal as a heartless, evil fucking rapist.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39060100]Why is this getting rated dumb? Do you guys really think that it's possible to get real sexual consent from an animal?[/QUOTE] Yes.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;39060945]Well if you spend so much time around animals, one would expect you to understand animals better. But that isn't always the case, so I'll just assume you're ignorant or stupid and not really one to really pay attention to the world around you. LEGALLY, it's impossible for animals to give consent, they'd have to verbally indicate or write it down, and we all know they can't do that. Want to make that argument, you'll win, but not against me because that is obviously true and I understand it perfectly. What I seem to know that you don't is that there is a world outside the world of legal and bureaucratic bullshit that people who are raised like you don't seem to understand. Zoophiles don't rape animals, some people do, but in my experience people who associate with the term 'zoophile' generally don't. If it's really so hard for you to believe that some people out there can understand animals better than someone like you who probably doesn't even think twice about any creature other than themselves, I really don't think there is anything I could possibly say to convince you, but that doesn't make you right, [B]especially when you refuse to bring ANY evidence to the discussion whatsoever[/B] and rather just choose to judge anyone who might have sex with an animal as a heartless, evil fucking rapist.[/QUOTE] says the person who only provides anecdotal evidence from "zoophiles" tell me, do you personally want to have sex with animals