I posted something the other day about Pastor Rick Warren's comparison of homosexual acts to violent assault. Seems like not really an apt comparison. Now comes Antonin Scalia with an even better, I mean, worse, argument (from the Huffington Post):
"I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's effective," Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
Scalia has been giving speeches around the country to promote his new book, "Reading Law," and his lecture at Princeton comes just days after the court agreed to take on two cases that challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Some in the audience who had come to hear Scalia speak about his book applauded but more of those who attended the lecture clapped at freshman Duncan Hosie's question.
"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.
Then he deadpanned: "I'm surprised you aren't persuaded."
I'm perplexed by the first bolded claim, as Legislative bodies in the US are limited by the Constitution as to what they can ban–they can't ban acts of religion can't they? Anyway, I don't have the full quote or context so whatever.
The other claim, the reduction to the absurd, is rather odd. I imagine no one doubts the possibility of having "moral feelings" against homosexuality. The question, of course, is whether such feelings are (a) morally or rationally justified and (b) legally enforceable. I suppose the latter question is the one that ought to concern Scalia. So there is an equivocation in Scalia's claim over "cannot." You can have all the feelings you want against anything. Some of those might be morally justified, some might be legally enforceable. No law, however, can take away your ability to disapprove of things.
As if this were not bad enough for a big mind such as Scalia's, this equivocation is then used as a lever to push the little cart down the slippery slope: if we cannot ban homosexuality, then we cannot ban murder! That's not reduction to the absurd, it's just absurd.