O'Reilly: Green cards for gay partners could lead to "people in love with three women" claiming rights
On the July 17 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly, attacked a July 16 Los Angeles Times article that reported on the fact that while "heterosexuals can [sponsor] their husbands and wives" for green cards, a gay U.S. citizen cannot do the same for his or her partner. He said, "Well, what about the triads, OK, you know. I know there's -- I know people in love with three women." Also, despite later acknowledging that heterosexual bi-national couples must go through a "process," O'Reilly argued that if the law changed: "[A]nybody could say, 'Hey, I'm gay. You gotta let in Lenny, my friend over here.' " He added: "[A]re they gonna do a demonstration in front of the immigration authorities? Are they gonna demonstrate their gayness?" O'Reilly later asserted that "[t]his is social engineering," and went on to compare the legalization of gay marriage to that of "triads," adding: "I know people in love with three women. And so you're gonna bring that in."
In discussing the Times article, O'Reilly repeatedly asked how a gay couple would "demonstrate their gayness" before immigration authorities, if a gay U.S. citizen were allowed to sponsor a non-citizen partner for a green card. He asserted that "this isn't a homosexual situation. This is a logistics situation." He went on to discuss the Uniting American Families Act of 2007 -- a bill that would allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents in a committed relationship to sponsor their non-citizen partner for legal residency status in the same manner that a married person would -- and argued that "this immigration thing is way, way more than a bunch of Mexicans trying to, you know, pick agricultural products or make up hotel rooms or cook in restaurants. This is social engineering. This is what is behind all this." Despite later noting that the Uniting American Familes Act would require same-sex couples to be in "committed intimate relationships" with the intention of "a lifelong commitment to one another," O'Reilly also suggested that the legislation would allow legal status in cases in which "you met him over there on the beach in Mykonos, [Greece] and you guys had a great time."
O'Reilly concluded that there "is another subtext to this L.A. Times article," which is: "We should have gay marriage so all the gay get the same opportunity." He added: "Well, what about the triads, OK, you know. I know there's -- I know people in love with three women. And so you're gonna bring that in. They want a commitment. You laugh, but it's -- Look." When National Public Radio correspondent Juan Williams countered "That's absurd. I mean, clearly," O'Reilly argued: "It's not absurd. As soon as they passed gay marriage in Holland, they had Olaf with two girls, and they got married."
O'Reilly's mention of "Olaf with two girls" may be a reference to Victor and Bianca de Bruijin, a Dutch couple, who according to The New Republic, signed a cohabitation contract with another woman, Mirjam Geven "in an attempt to legally add her to the De Bruijin family" in September 2005. In fact The New Republic article cited Evan Wolfson, the executive director of Freedom to Marry, as saying "the only legally relevant thing that happened was that three people, with the help of a notary, signed a private cohabitation contract -- and did not enter into any kind of legal state-recognized union." Wolfson added: "Such personal agreements are not registered, and do not have legal implications for third parties. In both these respects, as well with regard to the state's imprimatur, a personal agreement or contract is different from both marriage and registered partnership." The article stated: "The De Bruijins didn't marry [the other woman], and they didn't even enter into a civil union. They simply signed a contract and got it notarized." The Dutch parliament legalized gay marriage on September 12, 2000.
Regarding O'Reilly's comparison of gay relationships to "triads," Media Matters for America has documented occasions on which O'Reilly discussed gay marriage and went on to warn of "poly-amorphous" marriage, in which "you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck." He has repeatedly stated that gay marriage will eventually lead to people petitioning courts to marry goats. During the January 5, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, he stated, "One of the arguments against gay marriage, that we just spoke about, is that if it becomes law, all other alternative marital visions will be allowed." He then related the story of a British woman, Sharon Tendler, who "married" a dolphin in Israel as an on-screen graphic read "Slippery Slope?"
From the July 17 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Here's what they -- this is today, an article, "Line in the Sand for Same-Sex Couples," by Teresa Watanabe, Watanabe. Quote, "The American and the Australian met in London. They fell madly in love. They got together, got a dog and got a house near Venice Beach, which is in L.A. But there is no happy ending in sight for Tim Miller and Alistair McCartney. That's because the couple is gay, and U.S. immigration law does not allow the Whittier-born Miller to sponsor McCartney for a green card as heterosexuals can do for their husbands and wives."
And then it goes on, you know, it's heartbreaking, and you got that -- all right, so the L.A. Times basically wants -- and this is a news article, by the way. This isn't an editorial. It's written like an editorial. The L.A. Times basically says, look, not only do you have to let in people who are married, but you gotta let in their gay partners now too.
Now, just think about that for a minute. Now, that means that anybody could say, "Hey, I'm gay. You gotta let in Lenny, my friend over here." How are they gonna do -- are they gonna do a demonstration in front of the immigration authorities? Are they gonna demonstrate their gayness? How do you know? You see what I'm talking about?
E.D. HILL (co-host): Yeah.
O'REILLY: Say you wanna get a guy in or a lady in, your friend. OK, you can say, "Well, we're gay."
HILL: Well, I think that's what it's gonna get to if you follow this.
O'REILLY: Well, but let's keep it here. Say, "Well, we're gay. You gotta give him a green card or her a green card." What do you do, a demonstration?
HILL: Prove it.
O'REILLY: Yeah. I mean, it's ridiculous. And so that means that you have carte blanche about, OK, you're an American. You go over. You meet somebody. They wanna come to America. You bring -- and you could have industry of that. "I'll give you $50,000 if you can get me in and say I'm your gay lover and dah, dah, dah, dah, dah." So it's impossible. I mean, this isn't a homosexual situation. This is a logistics situation. Couldn't do it. Couldn't do it.
But the L.A. Times, in its political correctness, the fog of PC, "Oh, you gotta do that. And if you're against it, you're a homophobic. You don't like those gays. Not fair." This, that, and the other thing, and you say to yourself, "Is it -- how bad is it gonna get in America? How bad is it gonna get? It's gonna get worse than it is now?"
Now, 19 countries allow gays to bring in their partners, and it's the usual suspects -- Norway, France, the Netherlands. Israel does. I think Israel just needs folks over there. Sweden. Switzerland, I'm not so sure. You got Switzerland down there. They don't let anybody in. So their name's on the list, but believe me, it ain't easy to get into Switzerland and be a citizen. U.K, I -- you know, you could see that. Canada, and on and on. So 19 countries say, "If you're gay, you can bring in your partner."
But here in America, we have such a problem with this; such a problem with illegal immigration, and our pals, Jerrold Nadler [D], congressman from New York, and Senator Patrick Leahy [D] from the People's Republic of Vermont -- Leahy really has gone off the deep end. I mean, Leahy was always a far-left guy. Now, he's just in the land of the forgotten here. My God.
The Uniting American Families Act, which is introduced first in 2000, would require that applicants be "adults in committed intimate relationships." What? I mean, that means you could bring in your girlfriend. "Committed intimate relationship who intend a lifelong commitment to one another." Who intend? This is crazy. Uniting American Families Act. It hasn't passed, but if the SPs were in charge, the secular progressives, it would. It would.
So I hope everybody's getting this thing, that this immigration thing is way, way more than a bunch of Mexicans trying to, you know, pick agricultural products or make up hotel rooms or cook in restaurants. This is social engineering. This is what is behind all this.
You know, let me just read you again. If the SPs could get it passed, you would have the Uniting American Families Act, which would require adults in "committed intimate relationships who intend a lifelong commitment to one another" could bring in whoever they want to the United States. Think about it.
HILL: I am.
O'REILLY: Think about it. I mean the industry that could grow up.
HILL: That leaves everything wide open.
[...]
O'REILLY: But look, the more crazy the secular progressives get, the L.A. Times gets, let's have all the gays come in, and if you have a friend, and you met him over there on the beach in Mykonos, and you guys had a great time, and you want him to become a citizen. The more nutty you get, the less cooperation you're gonna get from the traditional end.
WILLIAMS: Let me ask you a question, Bill.
O'REILLY: Real quick.
WILLIAMS: How would you allow -- on what basis would you allow people to come into this country: if they had money, if they had skills, if they had family? How do you make the cut?
O'REILLY: I would make the cut based on employment, and I would set up a guest worker program; a two-tier, temporary and permanent, and the people who wanted to come in as guest workers, and they had a skill that was needed by American business, they could come in, and they could prove themselves, and they could apply, and they get a green card, and they go through the process. Does that sound reasonable?
WILLIAMS: OK, so what you're saying is, then, if I have a woman -- if I meet a woman in Ireland and marry her, you're saying, "No, you can't bring her."
O'REILLY: No, if you get legally married to a foreign national, OK, then there is a process. They look at it. They see whether it's a bogus marriage -- because there's a lot of that. You know that.
WILLIAMS: Yeah, a lot of corruption on that front.
O'REILLY: And they make a determination on, you know, if you're legally married, then you can have a person here with you. Whether that person becomes a citizen or not has gotta be a decision made by the federal government. But we don't have gay marriage here. This is what they're -- this is another subtext to this L.A. Times article, "We should have gay marriage so all the gay get the same opportunity -- " Well, what about the triads, OK, you know. I know there's -- I know people in love with three women. And so you're gonna bring that in. They want a commitment. You laugh, but it's -- Look.
WILLIAMS: That's absurd. I mean, clearly --
O'REILLY: It's not absurd. As soon as they passed gay marriage in Holland, they had Olaf with two girls, and they got married. C'mon.
More O'Reilly homophobia, frankly I am sick of it.
Wow. I guess the vast majority of the American people who oppose gay marriage are homophobes as well.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
I never said that. This is strictly about Bill O'Reilly.
Then what did O'Reilly say that was homophobic, in your opinion?
From the article:
Regarding O'Reilly's comparison of gay relationships to "triads," Media Matters for America has documented occasions on which O'Reilly discussed gay marriage and went on to warn of "poly-amorphous" marriage, in which "you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck." He has repeatedly stated that gay marriage will eventually lead to people petitioning courts to marry goats.
Frankly, demonizing gay people in the manner he does -- "So what next, letting them marry three people?" That kind of nonsense is demonizing and homophobic. It's irrational.
"Frankly, demonizing gay people in the manner he does -- "So what next, letting them marry three people?" That kind of nonsense is demonizing and homophobic. It's irrational"
Not really. Polygamists have already come out for "civil rights" in the wake of the gay marriage movement. If you're going to give "civil rights" to one special minority interest group, then you're going to have to give "civil rights" to all the other minority interest groups.
Well, it all started when we allowed those darn heterosexuals to get married. All of this was inevitable.
Heterosexual marriage actually benefits society, because heterosexual couples are able to reproduce and have kids. The government doesn't get any benefit from allowing any other minority interest group to have marriage rights.
In that case, you must be all for polygamy cuz boy, if one woman can make a big family, imagine what two or three might do.
Hey, let's get rid of the annoying marriage issues altogether. Let's just jump in and start birthin' babies everywhere if the goal is to create lots of kids.
And while we're at it, let's keep those defective sterile people from marrying, cuz they don't have any bidness tying up the breeding power of a potentially fertile partner. And you women who can't have kids because you're past a certain age, free up that trophy husband of yours so he can get back to the bidness of makin' babies!
Heterosexual marriage actually benefits society, because heterosexual couples are able to reproduce and have kids.
Gays can reproduce but not in the conventional way.
The government doesn't get any benefit from allowing any other minority interest group to have marriage rights.
Heterosexuals get special privileges from the government and this is part of the reason why gays are seeking their right to get marry.
I personally see it as homosexuals being denied their rights under the Constitution. If not, why would so many be pushing amendments to the US and various state constitutions to take away that right?
"If not, why would so many be pushing amendments to the US and various state constitutions to take away that right"
Because we have so many activist judges in this country who are trying to thwart the will of the people and force their own liberal political views on the American people.
Activist judges are making new law by affirming that citizens in this country are allowed to exercise their rights?
Heterosexual marriage actually benefits society, because heterosexual couples are able to reproduce and have kids. Rino
Yeah the Hilton's have really helped society by producing Paris Hilton. :)
On the contrary, allowing homosexual and naturally infertile couples to have legal union rights also allows them rights to adoption, which benefits society by providing potential homes to all of the kids in the orphanage and adoption system that the breeders left behind.
It is, truly, a win-win.
Not really. Polygamists have already come out for "civil rights" in the wake of the gay marriage movement.
They're two separate things. Worse than comparing it to polygamy, others have gone so far as to compare it to marrying animals. Both comparisons are invalid.
Further, as it stands, there is nothing in the Constitution that would deny two citizens the right to get married. Apparently most state constitutions didn't or don't block it either, given the rush to add amendments that LIMIT THE RIGHTS of gay people. As would any of the various proposals to amend the US Constitution.
I'm not sure why polygamy isn't allowed or why it was outlawed. But it has nothing to do with why marriage is being denied to same sex couples.
"Further, as it stands, there is nothing in the Constitution that would deny two citizens the right to get married"
There's also nothing in the Constitution that gives two citizens the right to get married. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about it. That's why we vote on issues that the Constitution is silent on.
There's also nothing in the Constitution that gives two citizens the right to get married.
The Constitution doesn't give us rights.
And no one should be allowed to vote anyone else's rights away unless it conflicts with their rights.
"The Constitution doesn't give us rights"
Have you never heard of the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights put limits on the government.
Look beyond the first ten -- to, oh, say, the 14th Amendment. Little hunk of juicy legaleze in there about "equal protection." Fascinating stuff.
The 14th Amendment applies to someone of a particular race or gender who is being discriminated against. It would apply to homosexuals if you could actually prove that people are born gay, but until that day the amendment doesn't apply to them.
and on that (inevitable) day, you'll still be bitching.
I note, with some amusement, the sheer number of posts you have on this particular topic. This appears to be a hotbutton issue with you.
How, exactly, does gay marriage affect you?
(This oughta be good...)
Actually, I just post a lot on this topic because I'm really the only poster here with a different point of view. Even the conservatives on this site are liberal on this issue. I just like to stir things up a little bit. But also, I will admit that it angers me when someone calls an opponent of gay marriage a "homophobe." I think that you can disagree with someone without calling them names.
But in actuality, I don't think that gay marriage is one of the most important issues we face. And it doesn't really affect me. But I just think that it would hurt society as a whole. I've explained over and over again why I think that. But I don't think that I would even put gay marriage in the Top Ten most important issues. To me, abortion is a much bigger issue than gay marriage. Abortion is the #1 issue to me.
Also, I'll try to post less often on this subject. I think I've made my point of view quite clear.
how is abortion the #1 issue? And, how does it effect you?
Both issues have similarities...both are essentially one group telling another group what they can or cannot do based on the first group's BELIEFS.
High on everyone's "issue" list should be keeping all the cultic lunatics from dragging us down into a dark age theocracy.
Abortion doesn't affect me personally, but I like to think of other people as well. I don't like the thought of 1 million of my fellow human beings being slaughtered every year. To me, abortion is the #1 most important issue because it's a life and death issue. Terrorism is also a life and death issue as well, but only a little over 3,000 Americans died on 9-11, compared to 45 million babies that have been murdered since 1973. So abortion has obviously taken more lives than terrorism has so far.
The 14th Amendment only applies to you if you're not gay? Fascinating.
The 14th Amendment doesn't protect behavior.
IT protects equal RIGHTS like say the right to marry.
First that is YOUR interpretation and WHERE did you get your degree in Constitutional law again? Second since it is YOU trying to DENY them this right it is YOUR burden of proof the show they are somehow disqualified under the 14th amendment which basically says if a right applies to one group of citizens then it must apply to ALL groups of citizens HERE is the relevant text
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now what I DONT see in there is any specificity that it applies ONLY to race or gender.
No we dont. You get blown out of the water EVERY TIME you try this dumb argument yet you just keep trying it again. There is NO support for your baseless assertion that this is how it works. IF something were either IN the constitution or we vote on it why do we have Miranda rights? That is not in the Constitution nor was it voted on. This might be the way you WISH it were but if it were that way we wouldnt NEED a Supreme Court.
"something were either IN the constitution or we vote on it why do we have Miranda rights? That is not in the Constitution nor was it voted on"
You're right. The liberal Warren court created those rights out of thin air.
So YOU know better than the Supreme Court. Why do we spend so much money on them. We should disband them and when we have constitutional questions ask YOU. And you got your degree in Constitutional law WHERE AGAIN? Or MAYBE the guys whose job it is to interpret the constitution know a bit more about it than YOU do.
Well, 46% to 53% doesn't sound vast to me, but I did notice the polls also say the majority support gays serving in the military and adapting children. Those OK with you, or are you one of the ones bucking the system?
"Those OK with you, or are you one of the ones bucking the system"
They aren't completely OK with me, but they're OK with Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly actually takes a moderate to liberal position on homosexual issues. He supports civil unions for gays but not actual gay marriage. That's a position that most Democrats in Congress have. He also supports gay adoption as a last resort. That seems to be a moderate position to me. I agree with him on that. I just don't know why he should be called a homophobe for opposing this ridiculous piece of legislation.
Well, I guess that's what's the problem for me. I don't know enough about the legislation yet, but I'm not about to trust O'Reilly's word on exactly what can happen under it. And his stupid "worst case scenarios" don't exactly enspire confidence in his reasons to oppose now, does it?
Bill doesn't take a moderate to liberal view on anything. Case in point Bill O'rielly says he doesn't believe in the death penalty because he says the death penalty is too easy, he believes that US prisons should be managed more like the Russian gulags where prisoners were essentially used as slave labor. The prisoners in these gulags generally died before they reached the end of their sentences from physical exhaustion and malnutrition. In actuality he advocates a defacto death sentence where a prisoner is slowly tortured to death over a period of years
"Bill doesn't take a moderate to liberal view on anything"
Hmmm. Could've fooled me. The other day on his radio show he was saying that we need a big EPA. He said that the government needs to do more to clean up the environment, and he said that they should put a limit on greenhouse gases. He was also talking about how the government should have more over sight and regulations on the oil companies and airline companies. It was like listening to a liberal radio show.
Taking care of the environment is a "liberal" position? Please put that on all your conservative propaganda in the future. It'll really help the Democratic Party.
Lynn said that O'Reilly doesn't have a MODERATE or liberal position. Advocating a larger EPA that puts more regulations on corporations is AT LEAST a moderate position.
I'll give you that it's more and more a mainstream position. But I'd want to see more info on what O'Reilly says and has said before saying his position on the environment is truly moderate.
hello! RINO can't even tell us why he backs Bill on this bill. What exactly does this one propose? What are the potential loopholes? And most important, how can Bill, with falafel in hand, be better at finding those holes than a whole team of lawyers who helped put it together in the 1st place?
Unless they can provide a logical reason to oppose gay marriage, then, yes, they are homophobes.
I have yet to hear a logical reason to oppose it...slippery slope arguments are, by definition, illogical.
"Unless they can provide a logical reason to oppose gay marriage, then, yes, they are homophobes"
So are the vast majority of Democrats in Congress who oppose gay marriage "homophobes" as well?
Possibly. They're definitely political animals and have to kneel down to polls (or whatever it was you linked to up there) like any other politician.
Yes. I know a lot of Democrats who are homophobic.
Yes, they are. Or, rather, they're either homophobic or deliberately playing TO the homophobes in order to avoid being voted out of office.
Which I would consider to be homophobic as well. Selling out the rights of a group simply for electoral considerations shows a complete disregard, disdain, and comtempt for that group. It's a cavalier attitude that reveals one sees the other person as something less than oneself, i.e., less than human.
RINO,
Just because the majority believes something is good doesn't make it true. The majority of Americans at one time thought it was just dandy to hold other human beings captive and make them work for free. I'm sure there was someone just like you back then arguing how good slavery must be since the majority of Americans supported it. Might doesn't make right.
"Just because the majority believes something is good doesn't make it true"
It may not make it true, but people with that view point shouldn't be denigrated and called "homophobes" simply because they have a different point of view than you do.
The majority of the people that believed in slavery did so because they believed Blacks were inferior to them and they felt entitled to be served by these inferiors. The majority of people at that time were RACIST even though they didn't see it that way. They truly thought they were superior because that's what they had been taught all their lives. Sometimes people are bigoted out of convention and they aren’t evil they are just mistaken. Have a good night RINO.
I don't know how you can compare homosexuality to slavery. Blacks were born that way. They had no control over it. Homosexuality is a behavioral trait. It's very possible that people became homosexuals because of their upbringing. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that people are born gay. It's not a valid comparison.
"There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that people are born gay." You have not repeated this particular piece of factoid 20 times today, better get busy.
While I wouldn't doubt for a second that there are a very few people who choose sexual behaviors, the day I'll believe that your sexual orientation is "chosen" or "learned" is the day all the homophobes tell me what day it was when they chose to be straight.
Agreed. I certainly don't remember "choosing" to be heterosexual. In fact, like most boys, I didn't even like girls until I was about 11 or 12. Then they suddenly became quite fascinating.
I'm not denying that there may be some cases where a person's sexual identity is warped by abuse or imprisonment, but there is no logical or empirical reason to believe that it is simply a "choice".
I didn't even like girls until I was about 11 or 12.
Really? I remember liking the girl next door when I was four and getting teased about it. Now I had no clue what it meant that I liked her. Nor when I "liked" a girl in the sixth grade. I was just attracted to girls in a way that was different from the ways I made friends with guys.
And that is how I began "practicing my love of women."
Maybe I shouldn't have said "like most boys". I may have been a little weird. I had girls as friends, certainly, but I always thought of them as "different". Maybe I paid too much attention to the Little Rascals' "Wimmin Haters Club".
Nerzog and Marv, you obviously had to "choose" to like girls, and are making Rino's point. Rino is so sure that it's a choice, I imagine he had to struggle, self-hypnotize and go into all sorts of denial to convince himself he wasn't gay.
I, on the other hand, was very attracted to the ladies from the moment the two cells that began my creation met each other.
Once again, I have verified that I'm straight as an arrow, and much more manly than any of you. I would almost feel sad for you, except that emotions like sadness are much too effeminate for me to experience.
Masculinely yours, HBL.
What a deeply touching and warm confession. Now go forth and practice your love with women.
I didn't know Huntington was a GYN.
Lynn, I freelance, when I'm not lumberjacking,working as a hit man or flying stunt planes.
Did I mention that I'm very manly? Please let me know if you need verification.
Do you skip and jump? Do you like to press wildflowers?
heck, I didn't think about it until I went to Marine Military Academy, then all of a sudden I liked every cadet's sister!
Wow. How is it you're still alive?
You'd be surprised, but being in deep south Texas, you can't believe why Mexican women are sooo sexy! Must be why I eventually married one?
I live in the San Francisco area. Latina heaven. I share your deep appreciation.
"Agreed. I certainly don't remember "choosing" to be heterosexual. In fact, like most boys, I didn't even like girls until I was about 11 or 12. Then they suddenly became quite fascinating"
That just shows that it's very possible that sexual orientation comes from one's upbringing and isn't simply something they're born with. I liked girls from a very early age, but obviously not from the time I was born.
"That just shows that it's very possible that sexual orientation comes from one's upbringing and isn't simply something they're born with."
How?
Because most people aren't attracted to girls when they're one or two years old. If people were really "born" with a sexual orientation, then you would think that they would be attracted to either the opposite sex or the same sex from the time they are born.
Because I didn't choose my sexuality; my sexuality chose me. But I understand your case is different because you chose your sexuality and your opinions are based on that.
"Because most people aren't attracted to girls when they're one or two years old."
My voice became deeper during puberty; hair started growing all over my body during puberty; there were some growth spurts during puberty; and I gained the ability to reproduce during puberty. I didn't choose any of these things.
Because most people aren't attracted to girls when they're one or two years old.
At one or two, most are happy if they can feed themselves. They're not really seeking out a life partner. Even if an infant feels some sort of attraction, which they very well might, they're not likely to be able to express it in any meaningful manner, nor remember it later in life. You're gonna have to come up with something a bit more convincing.
(Anecdotally, I've also witnessed and heard about infants and toddlers whose parents refer to them as a "ladies man" or whatever. They just seem to gravitate toward men or women more. There's no good way to prove why something like that would be.)
But in the end, it doesn't matter. In this country, you're free to be who you want, and love who you want. You should be afforded the various legal protections of marriage should you choose to spend your life with that person. Particularly if you care about the stability of familes and homes.
"If people were really "born" with a sexual orientation, then you would think that they would be attracted to either the opposite sex or the same sex from the time they are born."
Oh my god! Are you a freaking pedophile or something??? In case you were somehow unaware of this, babies are not sexually attracted to anyone. Have you never heard of sexual maturity, adolescence, etc.? As someone else pointed out, you must think stuff like breasts are a "choice" too, since we're not born with them.
That just shows that it's very possible that sexual orientation comes from one's upbringing and isn't simply something they're born with...rino hunter
================================
Hmm. So exactly what was it in Mary Cheney's upbringing by Dick and Lynne that turned her into a lesbian?
There is also no evidence that they are NOT born that way. Even if it is a choice, which I strongly doubt, that is no reason to deny them the right, or privilege, to get married. After all, religion is a choice.
"Even if it is a choice, which I strongly doubt, that is no reason to deny them the right, or privilege, to get married"
Why? Should we give drug dealers the right to sell drugs on the street?
It wouldn't be a thread about homosexuality without an idiotic comparison to crime.
Where's the harm here? Who does it hurt? Is the population going to dwindle because five percent of the people don't reproduce? Is it going to damage other people's marriages?
Of course not. The only issues of harm are external, results of narrow-minded people who are more concerned with the words in a two-thousand year old book than the lives of actual people.
I agree that that comparison is insulting not only to homosexuals, but to anyone with half a brain. Being gay isn't a crime, and your suggestion that it is is way out of line.
I don't think that "being gay" should be a crime. I'm against anti-sodomy laws. I just think that marriage should be between one man and one woman, as it has been throughout our country's history.
Then don't compare it to criminal behavior. Fair enough?
I thought you said that drug use shouldn't be criminal behavior? Aren't you one of the ones who want drug use legalized?
Oh, I do. Making drugs illegal isn't the best way to deal with the problem.
But your comparison isn't based on my view of it, now is it? It's based on your view, which reflects your view of homosexuality.
Did that really have to be explained to you?
Are we really going to base laws on how they have been through history? We didn't treat blacks like human beings for 88 years! By your reasoning, they should not have equal rights.
On another topic, what type of proof would you accept for people being born gay?
No, drug dealers and their products should be licensed, taxed and regulated just like any other hazardous chemical. But, it sure is convienent to have a huge underclass to declare war on, and imprison to show what a tough on crime guy I am.
PS I am not good speller and will not be using spell checker anymore.
I see. We should just treat drugs the way we have treated tobacco. We should just legalize it and regulate it so strenuosly that we cripple an entire industry. It's all about creating a bigger government with you guys. You simply want to have drugs legalized so that the government will have one more thing to regulate and one more industry to cripple.
Yes, that is correct.
We should just legalize it and regulate it so strenuosly that we cripple an entire industry.
Your concern about tobacco is that that an industry is being harmed?
I'm not for making cigarettes illegal by any stretch. But in the discussion about cigarette smoke, boy howdy does the tobacco INDUSTRY drop to the bottom of the list of my concerns.
What type of "proof" would you need, Rino, to change your position?
I have gay friends who were brought up in households where parents were very homophobic (much more than against gay marriage) and tried to date women, but they just were not attracted to them. They tried, Rino, but, for some reason that they could not explain, they were not attracted to women, but were attracted to men.
Frankly, with how mainstream society treats homosexuality, I don't know why anyone would "choose" to be gay. The gay friends I have certainly didn't make a behavioral choice. Have you had this conversation with a gay man or woman about "why" they are gay?
It really doesn't matter any way. While I don't know Rino's position on the matter, there are those homophobes who would say that if one is "born gay" then they should just not act that way and fight the urge, because the urge was wrong. There are those who use the "it's a choice" meme for now until it's proven otherwise, then they'll continue to hate gay people for some other reason. In that manner, it's just like racism.
Of course, both homophobia and racism are primarily learned behaviors and can definitely be overcome.
You are correct. Bigotry is a chosen lifestyle.
"You are correct. Bigotry is a chosen lifestyle"
And since you're bigoted against evangelical Christians, you apparently chose to be a bigot yourself.
Because you have to be a bigot to criticize a bigot, is that right?
Hey! You should be more tolerant of the evangelicals intolerance!
"While I don't know Rino's position on the matter, there are those homophobes who would say that if one is "born gay" then they should just not act that way and fight the urge, because the urge was wrong."
I'm not sure but I think this is what [most] Catholics believe. When I use to watch The Factor (this was before BO went psycho), he said something similar to your comment.
Many Christians like Rino are greatly invested in the belief that homosexuality is a "behavior" that one "chooses." I saw a bumper sticker today that said, "If God hates gays, why did he make so many?" And this is the main problem for many Christians. They believe that God made everything, so if homosexuality isn't a chosen trait, then all their bitterness, bile, fear and hatred towards homosexuals (and yes, Rino, I'm thinking of your past posts on the subject) goes against God. There's no way in hell they will ever accept that homosexuality isn't a learned and chosen trait.
"If God hates gays, why did he make so many"
God doesn't "hate" gays. He loves gays. He loves everybody. He loves gays but hates the lifestyle that they live. That's why most of us traditional people have adopted the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner." We should show love to gays in every way possible, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept the lifestyle that they live when it conflicts with basic biblical principles.
"He loves gays but hates the lifestyle that they live."
So your God hates?
He hates sin.
So your God does hate. Thanks for clarifying that.
God hates sin, because he's perfect. And it's not just "my God." It's the God of the 92% of Americans who believe in God.
I do believe there is an omnipotent being but I don't believe in any man-made religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.).
And why are arguing with me? I'm agreeing with you that your God hates.
I think if I was God, I'd be wondering why RINOs faith was so shaky that he has to cite a survey to proclaim his love for me.
Then I'd give him an ingrown hair up on the inside of the thigh.
God is perfect. And the Bible is His word. And we know that homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the Bible, right?
But yet, the Bible is inconsistent. A perfect entity can't contradict itself or change its mind, because then at one point or other it would have to be imperfect. Therefore, the inconsistencies of the Bible show that it can't possibly be the word of the Lord. Which means it's the word of man, which makes the damnations of homosexuality nothing more than bigotry in the guise of something holy.
I simply don't see any way around this. If God is perfect, the Bible is not His word. If the Bible is the word of God, and he kept changing his mind on so many things, then he is imperfect. That would mean that homosexuality may be acceptable on the grounds that God was wrong! If the Bible was mistranslated, then it's not God's exact word, and you can't trust anything it says.
No matter how you slice it, the "God is perfect" concept completely obliterates any Biblical justification for discriminating against gays.
Barb, I'd like your permission to put your post on a bumper sticker, ok?
If you can find one of those guys who can inscribe a book onto a grain of rice, be my guest.
Sorry, meant Brab. I like to park my truck so lots of pedestrians get a chance to read my ever so clever collection of stickers. Like Gore/Clark 08' + 12'
That's 20 years of sanity!!
God appointed you to speak for him, did he? You might think a little humility would be in order when one is dealing with the Supreme Being of the Univererse and all, but today's self-righteous christians know everything on his mind, I guess.
Question: when are the holy rightwing activists going to get to work on constitutional amendments (and, in general, overwrought screeching) against the usurer lifestyle?
Then how exactly do you explain the fact that most people who claim to be gay are actually bisexual to some degree? Do you believe that some people are born bisexual? And do you think that a bisexual person should have the right to marry a man and a woman? If they're attracted to both sexes, then should they have the right to marry a person of EACH sex?
"Then how exactly do you explain the fact that most people who claim to be gay are actually bisexual to some degree?"
Who cares.
"Do you believe that some people are born bisexual?"
Yes.
And do you think that a bisexual person should have the right to marry a man and a woman?
They can marry a women and have a men on the side (only if the wife is okay with that) and vice versa.
If they're attracted to both sexes, then should they have the right to marry a person of EACH sex?
I really don't care what other people do unless it affects me in some way.
I think you are confused about the definition of the word "fact." Would you mind providing some sort of proof that the majority of gay people are actually bi?
Sexuality is a continuum, not a black and white issue. Black and white thinkers like Rino can't seem to understand that.
Many people are wholly heterosexual, and many are wholly homosexual, but there are many who are also mostly one way, but will get excited rather than repulsed by the 'opposite' behavior. A few have no real preference at all, and are equally comfortable with either activity.
It's not just gays who are also bi-sexual.
There are two kinds of people who exhibit homosexual behavior and then stop exhibiting that behavior. One group would the bisexuals who for one reason or another choose to replace their homosexual behavior with heterosexual choices. The others are people who are brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is wrong, so they go contrary to their nature to act like a heterosexual.
There is one kind of person who chooses to "be" homosexual. That would be a bisexual person who chooses to be strictly homosexual. There are bisexuals who choose to be strictly heterosexual too. Those are the only people who "choose" their sexuality.
I wish more people understood this.
I don't know how you can compare homosexuality to slavery. Rino
Simple, there was a time in this country that white folks felt the same way about black people. It was a crime to marry someone who was black. Black people were considered 1/3 of a human being. You could only marry someone who was the same race.
For many years, prevailing attitudes of racism in the United States prompted many states to adopt laws that explicitly denied "Negroes" the right to marry whites. By 1940, a majority (31 out of 48) of states had banned interracial marriage (or "miscegenation") in some form
The issue was settled once and for all in 1967. In the case of Loving v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court ruled that all bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional.
It took this country till 1967 to ban something that many people thought was a crime. I'd be willing to bet that some of the same reasons against interracial marriage (the children, the children) are the same ones used against gay marriage.
For some reason you think that people wake up and decided to be gay. Rino use that brain of yours, do you truly believe someone would “come out” and take all the sh** that people dish out to gays.
Do those “Log Cabin Republicans” choose" to be gay? With all the crap your party dishes out they continue to support your party but they also continue to be gay. The party affiliation is choice, being gay is how they were born. If being gay was a choice they would simply have sex in the privacy of their bedroom and never subject themselves to the bull sh** that some in this country give.
Again trying to reverse the burden of proof here. Since YOU are making the argument that Lynns observation is wrong because homosexuality is a CHOICE, which itself is counterintuitive then its up to YOU to provide the proof or even scant evidence that it IS a choice. When are you rightwingers going to stop making arguments by making a baseless assertion then saying prove me wrong. Hey I think you molest small furry animals prove you dont.
"Since YOU are making the argument that Lynns observation is wrong because homosexuality is a CHOICE, which itself is counterintuitive then its up to YOU to provide the proof or even scant evidence that it IS a choice"
I'm just saying that it's still an open debate. Most liberals here come out and say that people are born gay without any proof at all. I'm still saying that it's still an open debate. My personal opinion that it has more to do with the way a person is brought up than with someone all of a sudden "choosing" to be gay. Many gay people simply didn't have a dominant father figure in their home when they were growing up. And many others didn't receive love from their father. So later on in life, they tried to find love from another male figure since they didn't get it from their father. That isn't true in every case, but I believe it is true in many cases. I think that being gay has more to do with the way one was raised than anything else.
Lack of father love, blah, blah, blah. It's claptrap, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's true.
WHY ON EARTH should such people be punished by the government for their parents' personality quirks? Why should the loving relationships they form be denigrated and disrespected?
"WHY ON EARTH should such people be punished by the government for their parents' personality quirks"
I don't believe that they are being punished or discriminated against. My position is that the government should simply stay out of the issue all together. The government shouldn't try to control what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. But they also shouldn't give explicit approval to homosexuality by giving gays the right to marry. No other minority interest group has that right either. The government should just leave things the way they are and just stay out of the issue.
Refusing to recognize that the committed relationships of gay and lesbian people are as valuable as the committed relationships of heterosexuals is denigrating and disrespectful.
To ignore them as if they mean nothing is cruel and immoral.
Not only that, but marriage comes with an entanglement of something like a thousand different tiny rights -- notably among them rights to visit your partner when the partner is hospitalized, this green card issue discussed above, inheretence rights, tax status, parenting rights, and so on.
If the Republicans in Congress hadn't gotten rid of the Marriage Penalty Tax, people would actually be worse off financially to get married.
So you acknowledge that heterosexual couples get tax breaks that homosexual couples don't get? Thanks for agreeing.
Rino, I have a gay friend. When he was growing up no thoughts about boy or girls until puberty. He only kissed one girl and that was because she ate a lot of candy (no lie). He had sex once with a girl and hated it. He was 15/16 at the time. He has never had sex with anything other than men. There is nothing attractive about women to him, nothing. Yes he had a father, mother, sister and brother, no neglect or anything. He is simply a man who like men.
In saying people are born that way doesn't mean at two or three you can tell people are gay. I don't think sexuality appears in children that young. But my gay friends all tell stories when they were 12/13 and knew that they were different. Whether they came out or stayed in the closet they knew that Dick like John and Susie liked Pam.
RINO,I have a first cousin who is Gay; He is from a family of two boys and two girls. His brother is 14 months younger. This is what they have in common, same sperm, same eggs, same womb and they grew up with an intact parental unit. They grew up in the same exact environment, but one brother is Gay and has always been Gay, I knew he was different from my brother and all of my other male cousins when I was little, but he was just what he was. Now his brother is like Huntingtonbeach he does like the ladies. My cousin is very lucky because his sexuality has never been a problem with his immediate family, he is actually very close to all of his siblings and his Mom. Their Dad is now dead. It also isn’t a problem for the sane members of our extended family, and thankfully we're the majority and we keep the insane ones in check. My cousin is invited and attends many family gatherings and on many occasions he has brought a date. He's a good guy and he's Gay, so what. I couldn't imagine my cousin being with a woman or any woman wanting to be with him for that matter. BY the way you said comparing homophobia to racism is wrong, well I disagree strongly with that. Bigotry is bigotry and not liking someone because they are different and wanting to discriminate against them is wrong. Oh yeah and that old tired argument that you can't hate Black people because they can't help that they were born Black implies that there is something wrong with being Black, and if we could change it we would. I wouldn't change one thing about myself..well maybe I'd make my self a little taller. I'm 5'4 but I always wanted to be tall. (smile)
Lynn, absolutely loved your post.
"Now his brother is like Huntingtonbeach he does like the ladies."
I see my manly and straight =as -an arrow reputation is pretty well verified.
Nice posts, Lynn and Pearlene.
"Oh yeah and that old tired argument that you can't hate Black people because they can't help that they were born Black implies that there is something wrong with being Black, and if we could change it we would"
Sorry. I didn't mean to make it sound like that. I don't have anything against black people. I was just pointing out that there are some racist people who hate blacks simply because of the color of their skin.
Also, I went to high school with someone who ended up being gay, but it didn't seem like he was always that way. Before he always flirted with girls and seemed to like them, although I'm not sure if he ever had a steady girlfriend. But others always made fun of him because he had a gay brother, and they told him that he was gay because his brother was gay. They made fun of him over and over again, and the kid always denied that he was like his brother. But about a year after I graduated from high school, I heard that he had come out and admitted he was gay. Someone told me that he now had a boyfriend. Now I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that in that situation my peers who relentlessly teased him about his sexual orientation might have convinced him that he was gay. He may have finally believed those who kept telling him over and over again that he was gay. I don't believe that he would've ended up being gay if not for the relentless teasing of my peers that he was gay. In actuality, there's probably all kinds of situations in which people become gay.
"Now I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that in that situation my peers who relentlessly teased him about his sexual orientation might have convinced him that he was gay."
Holy Jesus on a flaming pogo stick. So if society condones homosexuality, then we encourage it and people will become gay. But if we discourage it, and relentlessly mock people who we think are gay, then...we'll make more gay people that way too?
I can't hardly imagine a situation where someone who is really straight would make great efforts to prove it. Why would anyone be convinced of something like that, convinced to spend their life having sex with someone they weren't really attracted to because people mocked them and embarrassed them for being that way?
The psychology of that is completely convoluted, and smacks of an absurd rationalization you need to make to yourself to support your beliefs.
"Great" should be "greater" there.
I gotta agree. The idea of being accused of being gay actually making someone gay has gotta be one of The Stupidest things I've ever heard.
Go to the Savage thread from a couple of days ago. John####### says that there's no such thing as separation of church and state, because if there was we would only be allowed to vote atheists into public office.
There should be some sort of competition between those two as to who can make the most bizarre argument. Maybe we could call it the "dumbk-off"?
No that is NOT all you are saying. Lynn made a comparison you said DIRECTLY it was NOT a valid comparison because YOU think it is a learned behavior. So YOUR claim that her comparison is invalid is itself invalid unless you can cough up some proof that it IS a learned behavior and not inherent. Which as has been pointed out is itself counterintuitive. The only reason to make that argument is that it is convienient, you have no evidence it is true.
I'll bite. Yes, I would agree that people who are opposed to equal rights for gay people are homophobes. Because there is no rational reason for denying a citizen his or her constitutional and civil rights in this country, it must be some sort of irrational reasoning, such as homophobia.
Unless they can provide a logical reason to oppose gay marriage, then, yes, they are homophobes
I'll ask you the same question as I asked Nerzog. Are the vast majority of Democrats in Congress who oppose gay marriage "homophobes" as well?
Possibly. I'm sure some are. As I answered elsewhere, I suspect they are more likely political animals who have to walk the supposed "moderate" line to advance the civil rights of their constituency. Right now, as you pointed out, the majority is sadly all for limiting the rights of a segment of our population for no real reasons other than hate and fear. That puts those who try to get elected into a difficult position. So they straddle the fence and advocate other solutions, knowing that time will be the thing that fixes the inequality in the current system.
Exactly when the demographics change and a majority of people support gay marriage it wont take as long for most of those Democrats to change their position than it takes them to change their shirt.
Sadly, I agree with you. The Democrats don't have any real convictions. They just do whatever they feel is politically popular.
Wow, Rino, I am guessing you meant some of the elected officials because I can see on this board every day that most of the people have plenty of convictions that are not just politically popular. I know I could go down my platform that has stayed consistent for a while.
I would worry more about guys like Hannity who said the following earlier (thanks, MonkJ80)
Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?" - Sean Hannity, March 24 1999
"Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reason why we need to be involved militarily. That's number one. And then we go back to Harry Kissinger's test, which is number one, is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?" - Sean Hannity, March 24 1999
"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?" - Sean Hannity March 24 1999
"Sure Milosevic's a bad guy...but that doesn't mean we should go to war...He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Are you saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2000 - and I'm not minimizing death. Its horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers - 2000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?" - Hannity on the O'Reilly factor April 5, 1999
"Wow, Rino, I am guessing you meant some of the elected officials"
You're right. I was talking about elected Democratic officials, not you guys. Your positions on the issues seem to be very consistent.
Your partisan blinders make you as BLIND as you usually are.
The Democrats don't have any real convictions. They just do whatever they feel is politically popular.- RINO Hunter
Funny you would specify the Dems for changing positions to satisfy their employers (us), and not the GOP,who spend much more time dictating positions to their subjects (Republicans)
I guess that's conviction.
How simplistic. You can have convictions and understand it's better to go for gradual change than to take a stand you know is going to lose. I have very strong convictions that gay people should have full marriage rights, but I support civil unions because the goal obviously has to be accomplished in steps. Society will gradually become more accepting, and it's better to let a ripe apple fall into your hands than to break your neck climbing up to get a green one.
I know you take your model from the conservative "hey I know we only have 18% support but let's make a big stink about Terri Schiavo because we have convictions" style of governing, but a lot of people have more sense than that.
Then why do so many Democrats come out and explicitly say that marriage should be between one man and one woman? John Kerry said that in the 2004 election. Do you think that he was lying when he said that?
It's quite possible he was just saying that to appeal to your cited percentages, sure. Maybe he really believes that gay people should be able to have legal recognition through civil unions but never marriage. If that's the case I'd enjoy beating him down in that debate.
They have to to cater to the bigoted middle. Sadly, this country hasn't quite aged out the bigoted old people who think that being gay is a curse.
Two generations ago, people thought that it was wrong for a black and white person to use the same drinking fountain. The last generation and this one look back at that with amazement and can't see what the big deal was.
The current generation coming of age doesn't care whether someone is gay or straight (except when trying to set up their friend.) They have gay parents, gay friends, and so on. It just doesn't matter to them.
It's a shame that same sex couples today can't leap-frog past the bigotry of the middle and far right and be able to avail themselves of their rights. Until then, those advocating for change have to work within the system as it is. And pull the homophobic right wing out of the stone age.
My mom was not very bigoted, but she thought that we should not mix the races.
She had nothing against blacks and mexicans and orientals, but she absolutely hated the idea that they would marry and have mixed race children. She thought the races should remain pure, rather than mixing them.
As a result, I never dated anyone outside of my race, because I knew it would hurt her, but my children don't have that same fear. From what I've noticed, children who are mixed are some of the most beautiful kids I've seen.
We're all humans after all.
One human who has reached the age of consent should be able to pair up with another human who is of consenting age.
Like the current crop of GOP presidential candidates? The ones that are currently courting the whacko right fundies? After holding umpteen different positions in the past?
It is an unfortunate reality in this country that sometimes you have to cater to the bigoted jerks that inhabit part of "moderate" America in order to get into office. Once there, they can affect change.
I'd prefer thoughtful, yielding lawmakers and executives who could admit a mistake and make corrections. Our current president has demonstrated the problem with rigidity in the face of facts that demonstrate beyond the doubt that he's wrong.
Yes, I'd just love to know what Mitt Romney's convictions are. Or why Jerry Falwell was an "agent of intolerance" until McCain needed his political help. There are a couple of guys who know how to take a principled stand, obviously.
McCain made that comment before Bush and co broke his spirit and turned him into another bumbling Republican.
Uh...hate to break it to you but ...
53 percent isn't exactly a "vast majority," Rino.
With math skills like that maybe you'd be qualified for a job in the Bush budget office tho ... :)
Ha Ha, Rino.
53% to 46%????? Hardly the vast majority you claim, the difference is just slightly more than the margin of error.
And this poll specifically asked about "same-sex marriage," not civil unions. If you scroll down the page the the CNN poll, and combine civil unions and same-sex marriage, Americans actually favor some form of legalized union 51% to 43%. Again, not exactly significant, but you get the point. I hope.
And that is really the issue here. The "carte blanche" O'Reilly fears could be easily be remedied with legalized civil unions. Then we wouldn't have the influx of gay immigrants that is keeping Bill awake at night, because gays in a civil union would only be allowed to bring one spouse.
And, Rino, dude. If your argument is weak(and it is), don't post a link to the data that can refute your weak argument. Your making it easier every time to debunk your nonsense.
"The "carte blanche" O'Reilly fears could be easily be remedied with legalized civil unions"
O'Reilly supports civil unions for gays. I don't know why you keep overlooking that. You must not ever watch his show or listen to his radio program. And you simply looked at one poll in that large group of polls. Most other polls had the number who were against gay marriage at a much higher rate than that.
Rino,
Why do you insist on ignoring the difference between gay marriage and civil unions? They may not be really all that different, but they are differnet in the public eye. The term "gay marriage" puts that ridiculous image in the heads of many Americans of two gay men standing at the altar, one wearing the wedding gown, and so on. "Civil Unions" on the other hand are perceived as simply two gays going down to the courthouse to sign some papers.
Civil Unions are seen as less extreme versions of gay marriage, thus more Americans are willing to favor these unions than favor marriage. You see evidence of this in the Nov. 2006 Quinnipiac poll. The Gallop poll you referred to involves only "same-sex marriages."
And if Bill O'Reilly is so fond of civil unions, and so afraid of open borders for gays, why does he then not advocate civil unions in this piece? The answer is that the issue then would be not about gay immigration but civil unions, and O'Reilly wouldn't have anything to bitch about.
I'm with you, Tommy. (Not literally, I mean that I agree with you.)
I don't want HBL outing us the way he did Val and I over the weekend.
And who the hell is Lenny? Is Bill trying to tell us something? That might explain Bill's obsession with this subject.
Worrierking, you little hussy !
So first Nazi's and now gay blather. Bill's on a roll. Reality, truthfulness, no need for that ilk with Bill. It's old, its still amazing what you can get away with as a wretch wing pundit.
." How are they gonna do -- are they gonna do a demonstration in front of the immigration authorities? Are they gonna demonstrate their gayness?
I'm not aware that we make married foreigners do the dirty to get in now! But how far are they supposed to go? I mean, if it's just a BJ, how do I know it's just a lesbian pretending to be normal? Who get's to watch? Is it filmed? Oh, soo many questions, you sick peeping falafal sucking master baiter, Bill!
I dunno about all that, but I sure am happy that nobody every cheats the system today, cuz it's so easy to determine if two people are actually in loooooove. Cuz ya know, Het's would NEVER break the law.
I thought the same thing. Do heterosexual couples have to demonstrate their sexual methods before they can be legitimately called appropriately married?
And of course, heterosexuals have NEVER used our current immigration policy to bring in a member of the opposite sex they were not really in love with, but only got paid for. All that surprises me is that there are people who would refer to Bill's don't-allow-gays-to-bring-in-partners and don't-allow-gays-in-the-ballpark-with-children positions as "moderate". What then would be reactionary? Lynching?
Bill - "I know people in love with three women. And so you're gonna bring that in." Any chance he was looking in the mirror of his makeup booth when he thought that one up? Seriously, a marriage of 1 man 3 women and a bisexual Mexican, I could care less. If that floats their boat, it can't be any worse than some of the 'families" my clients counsel over at county social services. From what I see and hear, this culture needs more flexibility for family structures, not less. But, I took 3 semesters of human sexuality and believe me, the marriage I described above is well within the normal range compared with how freaking strange humans can get.
the marriage I described above is well within the normal range compared with how freaking strange humans can get.
I was in college, I needed the money, and the guy said the video was only for his personal enjoyment!
Bitter, sorry the technology available for "personal enjoyment" when I was in college was 8mm, no sound. The "labs" in upper level sexuality classes were mostly grainy black and white interviews and then demonstrations of a variety of "deviant" behaviours. You had to pass a psych exam to enroll.
On a side note: there were many studies that we examined that showed that as the quantity of sex education goes up in a population, the rates of promiscuity, STD's, abortion even divorce would go down in relation to the control population. I've not kept up on the latest sex research (other than STD's) so I don't know if current surveys reflect this trend. I do know I've seen some data that strict abstinance only "education" does not produce any dramatic decrease in unplanned pregnancies, and in some studies, the rate of pregnancies went up more than the margin of error in the survey.
When Media Matters highlights Bill, it is just for comic relief. Although Bill still have viewers I suspect the tipping point has been reached and the number of people who watch to get News are outnumbered by those tuning in to just laugh.
"those tuning in to just laugh. " Add to those, viewers who tune in to show their children, that yes it's true, people on TV lie ALL THE TIME! My son did not believe me that after dozens of lies have been exposed that he would still have a job, and yet there he is.
It's tough for a kid in high school to understand, especially after a favorite coach got fired for lying once.
Another KO(D)y headed Bull OhReally's way?
My wife is German and I had to "sponsor" her so that she could remain in the country. It was a huge pain in the ass and I could afford a lawyer to file for us. It was still a huge undertaking and you have to give the government so much personal information including banking, taxes, education...everything. Because I was supporting my wife and didn't have bank accounts or insurance (cant afford that) that was in both our names, the validity of our marriage was questioned and we had to do another round of bs including affidavits from friends and family. Funny though, they never asked if we had sex or which orphus we preferred. O'Reily's assumption that a marriage certificate endorsed by your state is all you need and that it's real easy, is complete hogwash. I would hate to be the first gay couple trying this...what a sh*tstorm they will encounter.
Someone please send O'Reily a goat with a Valentine hanging around its neck.
Been there myself. And my wife is Mexican, and you know how ol' Bill thinks those "wet-backs" get automatic citizenship! Thousands of dollars to do it right, and it takes forever...
O'Reilly is such an ignorant, bigoted ass. Archie Bunker with a radio show.
My partner and I are among the ones affected by the current lack of immigration rights for same-sex couples. He's been working legally here for ten years, and we're still waiting on the green card. Until he gets it, he's completely dependent on the whims of his employer, and I can't do a thing to help him. If his boss doesn't want him any more, for any reason, he has to leave the country. Nice, huh? The complete lack of security for our future does wonders for the stress level, let me tell you.
It's unbelievable how ignorant and callous some people can be. For example, running off to Mykonos and bringing someone home, blah, blah, blah. Guess what, Bill. Heterosexuals are currently allowed to do exactly that--and they do it all the time. Guess what else. They don't even have to travel; they can just order a would-be spouse online at sites like this one: [link to russianbrides.com] And get visa sponsorship for their lovely ladies from our federal government by filling out a few forms and (sometimes) going to a single interview with an immigration officer.
But no, it's not enough that those of us whose lives together are held hostage have to put up with the laws being what they are. We also have to listen to demagogues like O'Reilly and internet trolls like RINO spew their lies and hate.
Temp,
I agree Bill is a complete idiot, but RINO isn't really a troll. He doesn't do this to disrupt the debate, sadly he completely believes what he consumes in his little right wing world. He's just very very misguided. I hope things work out for you and your partner, it's a shame you can't get married.
Lynn,
troll or no troll RINO is a distraction to intelligent debate. Do any of us really care what this backward mouth-breather thinks? We are intelligent people living in a world that desperately needs intelligent debate. Let's not get distracted by the challenge of engaging a fairly feeble mind when there are more important issues at hand. It's anoble cause trying to enlighten this fella, but at the end of the day, it's a bit like trying to teach sign language to a palm tree while the village goes hungry.....muddled priorities. We need top-down change in this country - the only way to do that is either to influence or become leaders - neither of those is achieved if we address the concerns of every half-crazy biggot online. If you (or any of us) were running for President - would you accept a debate request from Bill O'Reilly, the KKK or the Church of "hold snakes against your body til they bite and God will love you"? Of course not- because they would be an irrelevant distraction to the greater task of communicating with the nation - by the same token, RINO and the like need to be ignored. It's like the teacher said when we laughed at the kid with milk dripping out of his nose...."don't laugh kids, it just encourages him."
temp, i am in the same boat as you and your partner. my partner is in the UK, we are only able to visit, will have a hell of a time when and i mean when this bill passes, as we both run our own households. we as of yet dont have joint bank accounts, seems silly to do however do all hetros that sponsor their mates have joint bank accounts? i have a friend that was paid to marry someone for them to get to the states, i think there is more of that than there will ever be gay or lesbians doing it, it will be too damn hard!! all o'reilly did was show that he really knows nothing about the issue and what a jackass he really is!!
Why? Should we give drug dealers the right to sell drugs on the street?
Rino, it's not the same thing and I'm pretty sure you knew that; it was just a lazy rebuttal on your part. Why else would you compare a gay couples' desire to be married to a person desiring the right to commit criminal activities? It totally degenerates homosexuality; the same goes for claiming that it will lead to interspecies marriage.
My partner and I have been struggling with this for many years now. Unfortunately, he does not have the kind of job that is highly sought after in America, so qualifying for a visa based on employment is out of the question even though he has been a master in his field here in Germany for more than 20 years.I am from New Orleans and after Hurricane Katrina, we dropped everything, left Germany and went home to find my family and help clean up. We helped many families and it was hard work. Days before his 6-month visa was to expire we had to leave the country. We threw on our backpacks and went to Central America for many months. Upon return aswe were going through Immigration and Customs, my partner was detained. They wanted to know why he hadn't been back to his home country, what he was doing to support himself, and what he did in America when he was there for 6 months before. He told them that he helped my family clean up after Katrina-they immediately stopped him, accused him of lying and said that what he had done was "work for room and board" which was against federal immigration laws. The truth is that I was supporting him and always will, but we couldn't tell them that because it would give them reason to believe he has "other interests in staying"(aka=me.) which is reason enough to deny him entry. Once they found out I was American, they (physically) separated us and detained him. They finally gave him only 4 weeks to be in the country. We were counting on longer since my dad's wedding was to take place 6 weeks later. Even though he is very much a part of our family and we are even legally married in another country that allows us to be---we weren't able to attend my fathers wedding. Since then,we have taken our money and dreams have moved back to Germany. For now, we are better off here.I don't want either one of us to go through that again.I don't even go home to take part in family events, because if we aren't welcomed there, I am not about to leave him out, while I take part. I have hired several immigration attorneys,none of which could do anything remotely close to what O'Reilley suggested,unless I had a few hundred thousand dollars to invest and even then his stay in the US wouldn't be guaranteed, it would only be a temporary visa that couldn't be changed later on. We found someone inAmerica who is willing to marry him, but that not an easy solution. If we get caught,we both risk a $250,000 fine, getting through in jail, or him being permanently banned from ever applying for a visa again. We started out trying to do this 100% legal and by the books, but the longer I carry on, I am thinking it is an impossible road tofollow. But, living underground in America andin hiding is not a viable option either.It's a sad day when you realize that you're purposefully being excluded from the pursuit of happiness--and no one seems to care. It's even sadder when fellow Americans sit back and allow it to happen without saying anything...even many gay and lesbians because no one will ever realize the extent of this problem unless it affects them directly. I hope none of you ever know what that feels like. When it feels like your own people have thrown you and your family to the wayside.I feel the exclusion of an America that is unfamiliar to the rest of the world. It's a tragedy that America is causing to one of her own---and I shouldn't have to be living like this. Since 2000 I have watched this bill get introduced and reintroduced...and it always gets buried and never gets a chance in committee.I follow it every single day,because it is our only hope. It will get lost again unless ordinary people stand up and do something to help us.I don't care if there is ever gay marriage in America or not,I don't need a seal of approval on my relationship-I am already married.What I need is the opportunity to come home and bring my partner there to live by my side so that I can continue what used to be a very uncomplicated life.
RINO claims that God hates sin because God is perfect. This is problematical for RINO.
Any change to perfection results in imperfection. Think of perfection as the apex of a needle. Any direction is down.
I submit that a perfect being would be utterly static, since any change to its state of perfection would result in imperfection. Any action; any emotion; any thought. In short, a perfect being would be utterly static in its state of perfection, thus utterly irrelevant.
If, on the other hand, a god is imperfect, why should its fellow imperfect beings give any special importance to its edicts? It could be wrong.
It seems to me like if our actions in life are the basis for the ultimate eternal judgments of burning in hell or paradise (and if God loves us and wants us to go to heaven), then he would have to be consistent in his commands. Otherwise, people could go against his will without even knowing it, paying the ultimate price as a result.
This would be similar to a boss who gives you contradictory and simultaneous orders and then fires you for disobeying one of them. Obviously that is not the behavior of a perfect, loving God. So God would have to let you into heaven if you had good reason to believe you were acting in accordance with his wishes.
Therefore, I can own a slave. If slavery was morally wrong, surely God would say so, instead of telling us the proper way to treat them when we have them. I would just be following his word, and I could not be punished for it.
If slavery wasn't immoral and has become so, then by the same token homosexuality could have been immoral and is not so anymore. How would we know otherwise?
The upshot, of course, is that either God is jerking people around by giving us inconsistent instructions, or the Bible is the word of man and therefore we have absolutely no way of knowing what God wants us to do. Either way, it doesn't allow arguments about what this supposedly perfect God approves of and what he doesn't.
According to the Bible, God is the greatest mass murderer of all time.
Yes, the story of Noah was memorable for me in church, even at six or seven years old I was simply not buying what they were telling me. Noah and his family were the only people who weren't wicked? If God is perfect and all-knowing, how did he allow such a situation that required such draconian measures to correct?
While I didn't flesh out all the details at that young age, I knew something was wrong. I know we have free will and all, but for 99.999% of the world's population to be wicked that has to be some sort of major design flaw, where Noah and his family were the lone exceptions.
Either that or God killed a bunch of innocent people to make a point. I didn't get it, and it led me to take everything they told me with a rather large chunk of salt ever after.
At least you're being consistent and rejecting the Bible as a whole. I have more respect for you than I do for people who simply pick and choose certain aspects of the Bible to believe while ignoring other aspects.
come off your high horse RINO because you do the same thing. You pick and choose and fill in the blanks with guesses and feelings. You don't know for certain just like I don't how God feels about every single solitary thing. You won't find out until the rest of us on judgement day.
Couldn't agree more, Rhino. I have no respect for people who want to use the Bible to condemn homosexuality but thinks it's okay to eat of the cloven hoof or not okay to stone women for adultry! Hypocrites!!
Oh, wait, that would be you, wouldn't Rhino? Oops.
Sorry that should be Rino, not Rhino.
The third option, the best option and the only one that makes a lick of sense is the one that says that the Bible was written by man, inspired by God and intended to present stories, some true, some not, to teach lessons.
There is no chance the whole world was ever flooded. Early people didn't understand the symbiotic relationship between all the living creatures on the earth, including those creatures too small for them to see. They didn't understand that none of the sealife or freshwater fish would have survived the dilution of the ocean water or vice versa.
It's a story that can teach a lesson if used properly.
It's too bad that so many religions are so immature that they can't grow beyond the stories created to fit a child's mind to see the moral and the relevance of that same story taken figuratively instead of literally.
Has someone already made the obvious link between a anti-gay campaign from both the GOP and on national television in the last years. Maybe that explains the relatively high numbers against gays and gay mariage. Information that comes out is very biased and indeed anti-gay, and without any scientific support!
We must thank Rino for demonstrating the importance of Biology education, and why we shouldn't allow the knuckledraggers to dilute it with their Creationist fairy tales.
I think Rino needs to find a good biology book and read up on human sexuality, especially the section on puberty...then maybe he'll understand why two year olds aren't yet aware of their sexual orientation. Just a thought.
And: Olaf with 2 girls is not considered being gay and will not be eligible to marry as a gay. Indeed, in Holland as is here, being married to 2 females is a crime.
I don't see why you can defend denying plural marriage rights but supporting gay marriage rights.
And I don't have a problem with either.
I think the main issue with plural marriage is that with regular marriage you give rights to one person. If one dies without a will, the other gets their possessions, that sort of thing. The problem with one man and two women (for example) in a legal contract is that if you have that kind of situation, you may have competing interests. You would almost have to give one wife, presumably the first, greater rights over the other. And the more wives you have, the more potential jealousy and spite you add into the mix. If people want to do that on their own, that's their deal, but it's understandable that the law wouldn't want to be obligated to arbitrate hundreds of thousands of such situations.
There may be a moral or Biblical root to it as well, but as far as societal and legal concerns go the problems with sanctioned polygamy are notable. The same can't be said for gay marriage, which legally works exactly the same as heterosexual marriage.
Good point on polygamy. I didn't really consider the legal complications. Of course, it would mean more work for lawyers. Maybe the Republicans will approve a government program to retrain all of those unemployed factory workers and send them to law school.
I agree with the legal complications being at a higher level if we integrated plural marriage into the system, but I don't think they're strong enough to deny it legal status.
I agree plural marriage presents logistical and legal ramifications that aren't practical and affordable for most people. That said if plural marriage is made legal we should demand that the adults prove they have the financial means to provide for a potential family size of twenty and all adult participants in said marriage will be financially obligated to all children born into these arrangements regardless of which vagina they emerged from.
We should make regular couples prove that now!!!
=>
Actually I don't have a problem with polygamy either. If a man or woman can deal with multiple partners in a responsible way, more power to them.
That aside, if society can set the standard at one man and one woman, society can move the standard to include two consenting adults of either sex. We just have to convince the traditionalists to get out of the way, or outvote them. Furthermore, if polygamists can lobby successfully to make their version of marriage legal, who would be harmed? Now, this doesn't mean that we would have to allow pedophiles to marry children, or goat lovers to marry goats. Children and goats are not consenting adults.
I like the Libertarian position on this. Civil union is the term that should be used by a governmental body which confers the legal rights and the couple can be free to seek out someone to "marry" them if they choose.
This way the government is not making a spiritual decision, simply granting the contractual rights and obligations.
It is surprising how much mileage commentators and pols are getting out of this. Why would this be someone's signature issue anyway? Since Jesus mentions this 0 times; St. Paul 1 time (and that referring to more public outrageous behavior) They have to go back to Leviticus for some good old fashioned gay bashing. Those fundamentalists really do seem to prefer the Old Testament to the New.
That is correct...it's easier to justify bigotry using the Old Testament...Jesus was a tad too liberal for their taste.
I very much agree that governments made a mistake when they recognized "marriage" as a legal entity rather than a simple religious one, and it's for that reason that denying basically any marriage between consenting adults as legal is unconstitutional.
I think abortion should be a state-only issue, I think whatever "right to privacy" means should be a state issue, I think lots of stuff should be state issues that the Supreme Court disagrees with me on...but I think the issue of marriage is truly one for the Constitutional books.
If modern American Christians didn't "pick and choose" which of God's "laws" they obey, Red Lobster would be out of business.