Skip to main content

Antonin Scalia's son believes homosexuality is a "modern phenomenon"

Reverend Paul Scalia - son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - appears to be just as anti-gay as his old man. In fact, he may have one-upped the man voted less likable than Oscar the Grouch, as it appears the reverend doesn't even believe that homosexuality exists.

In a 2012 article he wrote for Humanism: Issues in Family, Culture & Science, Paul Scalia said the following:

"In short, we should not predicate 'homosexual' of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations. Indeed, the Church is still trying to find the right vocabulary to speak about this modern phenomenon ... Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not. We cannot speak of more than one sexual 'orientation' any more than we can think of the sun rising in more than one place (i.e. the orient)."

That was a lovely comparison made by Scalia there at the end of his "piece," but I'm not going to even focus my attention on that. Before that, he referred to homosexuality as a "modern phenomenon."

First off, does Scalia know what the word "phenomenon" means, and secondly, does he know what "modern" means?

Just three months ago, archaeologists discovered the skeleton of a caveman from between 2900 and 2500 BC in the Czech Republic. Due to how he was buried, it's believed that this man was gay.

What is homosexuality again, Mr. Scalia?

"[A] modern phenomenon..."

A 5,000-year-old "modern phenomenon"? With Paul Scalia being my guide, I think it's safe to say that homosexuality is about as modern of a phenomenon as prejudice, ignorance, and denial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/04/paul-scalia-homosexuality-antonin-scalia_n_3543284.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1374060/Gay-caveman-5-000-year-old-male-skeleton-outed-way-buried.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...