Flashback: Here's Chuck Schumer Arguing for Anti-Fraud Measures for Illegals
NH Teacher Union Head Says the Quiet Part Out Loud As She Rails...
WATCH: The New Naked Gun Trailer Drops With the PERFECT O.J. Simpson Joke
Flashback: Here's Nancy Pelosi Singing a (D)ifferent Tune on China, Trade Deficits, and...
‘Hmmm’: Adam Kinzinger Suspicious There Are No Tariffs on Russia
What a Peach! Watch Unhinged Leftist Crow About 'No FEMA' for Tornado-Impacted Red...
Tim Walz's Magical Media Tour Continues! He Tells MSNBC Voters Regret Electing Trump...
Not Even CLOSE, Bud! The Hill Wants Us to Believe the Pendulum Is...
Only 19% of Baltimore Kids Are Proficient in Math, So the District Spends...
Jamie Raskin Calls Fed. Employees Patriots, Claims They Pass Up MANY Rich Jobs...
U.S. Bans Romantic Relationships Between Gov Workers and Chinese Citizens, Eric Swalwell H...
EPIC Post from GenZ'r Explaining Why He's NOT Worried About His 401K DECIMATES...
Now That the Border Is Secure It's Safe for Dems to Go (Tom...
NBC News Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel to Get a Nurse's Opinion...
CNN's Abby Phillip Gets Fact Checked to Her Face!

Liberals attack Scalia for argument about homosexuality

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:

Advertisement

“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.

https://twitter.com/TheRealRoseanne/status/278556088381628416

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/Dian8Keaton/status/278566950735581184

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.

https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/278564955035418624

All of the sudden, liberals are pure textualists.

https://twitter.com/Jimi_We/status/278568048699531264

Advertisement

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.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement