Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explained to a crowd at Princeton University that drawing parallels between consensual sex and murdering a person or sexually assaulting an animal is “effective” as a rhetorical device, because they’re all just questions of morality.
Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
“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.
“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,'” Scalia told [Princeton student Duncan] 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 not saying homosexuality is just like murder. I’m just saying that anti-gay laws are kind of like anti-murder laws. And if you weren’t so darn gay, you’d understand that.”