O'Reilly's Ark: Gay marriage could lead to goat, duck, dolphin, and turtle marriage
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly again theorized that the legalization of gay marriage could lead to interspecies marriages, stating to Margaret Hoover, "[Y]ou would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can." O'Reilly has previously suggested that gay marriage could ultimately allow for a person to marry a goat, duck, or dolphin.
During the May 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly returned to his theory that the legalization of gay marriage could lead to the eventual legalization of interspecies marriages, this time stating to Fox News analyst Margaret Hoover, who argued against O'Reilly's theories, "[Y]ou would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can." O'Reilly has previously suggested that gay marriage could ultimately allow for a person to marry "a goat," "a duck," and "a dolphin."
During the May 11 segment, O'Reilly also again claimed gay marriage would lead to polygamous marriage, saying, "[I]f you OK gay marriage, then you have to do plural marriage, which is now -- has a name, triads. Three people getting married."
From the May 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right, Hoover. I did not know this, but I had said from the jump if you OK gay marriage, then you have to do plural marriage, which is now -- has a name, triads. Three people getting married. There is a group in Maui, Hawaii, called the Lessin's adversary group -- advocacy group, and it's World Polygamy [sic: Polyamory] Association. They're associated with that. And they want to be married.
So, No. 1, I'm an oracle. And No. 2, how you can deny them under equal protection under the law?
HOOVER: You can't deny them under equal protection of the law.
O'REILLY: OK, so you say that they have to marry, as well.
HOOVER: No, no. Here's what I think. First of all, I think it is extremely disingenuous for you to suggest that, if you allow gay people to get married, they're going to have to allow -- that polygamy is then going to run --
O'REILLY: You just said you have to.
HOOVER: -- rampant across the United States. Here's --
O'REILLY: You just -- wait, wait. You just said you have to allow them.
HOOVER: Before the camera went on you said to me two things: due process.
O'REILLY: Right.
HOOVER: You know what due process is? Due process is when we have laws, we then enforce them. We don't even -- we barely in five states have laws that gay people can be married. We have states -- laws in zero states that polygamy can happen.
O'REILLY: If I walk in to the Massachusetts state house and say, "Hey, Governor Deval Patrick, you've got to marry me and Lenny." All right? Because --
HOOVER: I would love to see that, by the way.
O'REILLY: Not only Lenny, but Squiggy too. All right? Or I walk in with the O'Brien twins from South Boston and say, "Hey, you've got to marry me, because you're allowing gays to get married, and I'm in the Lessin's group, the World Polygamy Association."
HOOVER: You've got to change the law, then. Because the law says it's between two people.
O'REILLY: OK, but --
HOOVER: Not multiple people. By the way, the last time polygamy was on the rise? 1896, when Utah became the 45th state in the union. Not a massive movement going mainstream.
[crosstalk]
GRETCHEN CARLSON (Fox & Friends co-host): Thirty years ago we didn't think we'd be where we are today.
O'REILLY: Carlson's right, though. You have to change the law to include the polygamy people, then.
HOOVER: That's Hoover.
O'REILLY: I mean -- sorry.
CARLSON: And that would be absolutely ridiculous if that happened.
O'REILLY: Why?
CARLSON: Because this is a slippery slope. The idea that we even have a name for this. Now we're going to --
O'REILLY: There's a show -- Big Love. Have you seen that show?
CARLSON: I have.
O'REILLY: Polygamy.
CARLSON: We're going to shame the word "marriage" now by calling it a triad? Give me a break.
O'REILLY: What about -- they're in love? They're in love, Carlson. How you can deny? How can you deny? Look at this guy. He loves all of those women.
CARLSON: I don't care what they do in their personal life. That is up to them with their personal life.
O'REILLY: But you're denying them equal rights.
CARLSON: No. Exactly. I care when the government, and I care when the private businesses of this world are going to be paying for everything with regard to this. I do. Because who's going to be next?
O'REILLY: All right. So you disagree?
HOOVER: I don't buy into the slippery slope argument at all.
O'REILLY: You'd let everybody do whatever they want?
HOOVER: That's the slippery slope argument. That's if you allow one thing to happen, then another thing, and another thing.
O'REILLY: Hoover, you would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can.
HOOVER: Due process. I want to abide by the law. If the law says I can marry a turtle, I'll marry a turtle. Last time I checked, we're a Judeo-Christian culture that doesn't allow me to marry turtles.
O'REILLY: You've got to take a stand. You've got to take a stand, now. You would be for, then, putting the umbrella over all groups.
HOOVER: I am for what the law says. I do not support polygamy.
O'REILLY: That's a copout. Total copout.
HOOVER: No, I don't support polygamy. I support two people, couples, marriages.
O'REILLY: OK, but then you have to explain why two and not three.
CARLSON: And then you don't call it marriage anymore. It's not marriage anymore.
O'REILLY: Explain why two and not three? And you can't.
HOOVER: I think that the crux of our foundation of our culture depends on --
O'REILLY: On two.
HOOVER: -- two people, yes.
This is a new low in stupidity. Are people really interested in watching this nonsense and taking it seriously?
Sponge Bob and Patrick make more sense and seem twice as intelligent as Bill and Gretchen.
There once was a man with some pluck
Who spoke about marrying a duck
The Turtle and dove
Called Bill's ardor "Big Love"
But the goat didn't give a grand phuck
Well done!
Just wanted you to know I saw your post to me on a thread several days ago, but I never got back there to reply.
This seems the "perfect" thread to tell ya that I love you too...in a manly way of course!!
Hey I love Daffy Duck, but I guess that's in a duckly way, since he's not a consenting human ;-)
I see that one person so far has given your post a thumbs down. I guess that person isn't sufficiently secure in his own manliness to accept ours.
I didn't want all of the triad marriage people angered so I didn't mention you.
But we also know that the depth of J2 and my manliness pales in comparison to your unfathomable virility.
I think I speak for everyone here when I say that you are the apex man on this site.
That was my Cockney accent ;-)
JJ, goats are known to be pretty promiscuous...at least the ones I've known were. Most of them are liberals, too. ;>)
Or a bird with a "gobble" or "cluck"?
Some people may howl
at a union so fowl
but to me it shows notable pluck.
Who needed two more to go golfin'
Billy O and Sir Jeter
(Who couldn't be sweeter)
Said, hey mate, we must do this more often!
With partners that some golfers lack
Is love's ground ever fertile
with goat, dolphin or turtle?
Or should we remember to "say no to quack"?
Or a bull with a big, shaggy head.
But of this there's no doubt,
Even if one has come out:
Different species will never be wed.
Miz Julia, you will be my caddy, right? I'll send you a list of your duties, hehehe, & of course the proper attire expected of my caddy. It starts with those stilettos of yours...
I don't know darlin, remember the last time we played chicken? We were both left with egg all over our faces ;-)
I wonder when someone will finally tell us to go get a room? Ha!
When will these idiots (and the rest of this half-backwards country) realize that they got NOTHIN'. There just no justification AT ALL for not letting gays marry. PERIOD. All they have is LAUGHABLE hyperpole.
Very, very good one!
LOL.
Just to be clear: I was proposing that every consenting couple (hetero or homo or just for convenience) be considered a civil union as far as the governments are concerned.
Along the same lines, there's no question that this is chosen behavior. If it was the case that homosexuality was unquestionably chosen behavior, the argument for gay marriage is much more difficult to make. Things such as societal norms and Christian morals then become more relevant to the discussion.
I am astounded. I guess that means there is no LOGICAL argument against Gay Marriage.
If anybody comes up with one, let us know... okay?
What I've never understood is why they think that being ignorant and foolish is going to increase their credibility.
Then again, having all those ignorant fragments in one place could be hazardous to you. You could cut yourself on a thought shard. Well, you could if any of your thinking was sharp.
Where did you come up with this pap?
No matter how right it could be.
All I know is that o'reilly assured his viewers a few years ago that women had every intention of aborting their fetuses under the guise of having a headache, so as far as I am concerned Mr. Bill is a
complete Non sequitur
(Anyone else old enough to remember Mason Reese?)
Did you actually make it all of the way down here without deciding that your prejudices were just too sacred to be challenged? Good for you! The problem is, people like Bill O'Reilly are much quicker and deeper thinkers that most of you. They can listen to the arguments used to support the legalization of Gay marriage and identify the principles involved in those arguments. They can then extrapolate those principles and apply them as the great philosophers have suggested, as though they were rules applicable in all comparable circumstances. Doing so they come up with the inescapable logic that the same principles can be applied to other circumstances and can and probably will be used to justify these other kinds of relationship. The basis for that extrapolation is that you have already done it in order to justify extending the definition of those eligible to marry from just hetero couples to gay couples as well.
The problem you're encountering is that you're just not intelligent enough or at least haven't applied your intelligence dilligently enough to understand what people like O'Reilly have been saying to you. Lacking a facility with reasoning you fall back on mockery in an instinctive desire to defend the structure of reality as you have so far perceived it. Mockery is the resort of those who cannot argue through reasoning and it is hardly surprising to see so much of it here. But I believe that you do have sufficient reserves of unused intelligence to understand these things, at least many of you do. I am confident that now that you've been challenged to apply that intelligence you'll do so and do your best to come up with argumants based in logic and reasoning instead of base mockery and pandering to a partisan perspective.
A very glib, verbose yet vapid response. Congratulations... I hope you're a fast typist.
I would be ashamed to argue something so silly.
You may have been aware of postings before they were made (who manufactures your amazing crystal ball?), but you certainly didn't understand them.
Write out a realistic proposal of what a Polygamy law might really look like. First, let's be honest about it and exclude the practice of Mormon pedophiles forcing 12 year old girls into marriage.
Now, for it to work, all parties would have to sign legal agreements to share their spouse with a third person. How many men do you know who would willingly share their wives with another man? How many women would willingly share their husbands with another woman?
Aside from this, if the man works, and his wives do not, he has taken on twice the financial obligation. Again, other than Mormon religious fanatics, who thinks that's a good idea?
If you can find as much as .5% of the population willing to enter into such contracts, maybe you have a point.
Neither incest nor polygamy is a matter of orientation. There's no justification for society to change its rules for the sake of that sort of behavior.
If that's the case, why do they always resort to a classic Logical Fallacy to support their opposition to Gay Marriage? Is that the best these "deep thinkers" (pffffft) can come up with?
Your problem is that you are applying the products of logic in the pre-logical or "magical" pattern, (a common failing on this site). Having already decided that your ability to asses reality is superior, (because your ability to influence your conditions depends on it), that which agrees with your view is good or "logical" while that which disagrees is bad or "illogical." It has nothing to do with a Socratean objective use of logic, it is a subjective product of narcissistic self-defense and enablement mechanisms. When you do get around to understanding the use of logic you'll see these things and kick yourself for having wallowed so long in a subjective reality, but when that happens console yourself, none of us starts out objective. It is an alternative that must be discovered, studied and gradually put into practice.
If you oppose Gay Marriage, you must have a reason. Now, that reason could be based in logic, emotion or religion. Your Slippery Slope argument is NOT based on logic, no matter how much philosophical sounding jargon you can regurgitate.
Neither you nor anybody else has succeeded in offering a LOGICAL reason to oppose gay marriage. Your slippery slope dodge is nothing more than an appeal to fear of what might happen afterward, and is, therefore, based on emotion.
So, please, stop pretending that you and the Anti Gay Bigots are using logic... you are not.
You know nothing about my background. Your arguments are based upon well-known rhetorical and logical fallacies, the "slippery slope" being one of the most used and least understood, especially by the likes of you, who can't even see the inherent error in your argument.
Enjoy your degree. Maybe one day you'll be able to clean the last of the Cracker Jack remnants off it so you can frame it and display it without attracting ants.
verb |pänˈtifiˌkāt| [ intrans. ]
1 (in the Roman Catholic Church) officiate as bishop, esp. at Mass.
2 express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic : he was pontificating about art and history.
I doubt that you are officiating as a bishop.
So discrimination against same-heritage couples isn't a problem. There are psychological, moral and genetic reasons to oppose legalization of incest, so there's nothing unfair about that position. The same goes for infidelity, it's not like you would be unfairly discriminated against if your wife filed for divorce on those grounds.
Surely these thoughts aren't too deep for you. I expect you grasped them already, and was just being disingenuous in your post.
This is the problem. The same arguments used to convince people that traditional marriage should be expanded to include Gay marriage can also be used to justify these other variations from that tradition. But when Opponents or questioners of the change try to point that out, advocates engage in the same thoughtless prejudgements that those who would not even consider Gay couple's requests to be able to get married engage in. In so doing they have failed to answer all of the questions and ease all of the doubts because they've failed to address all of the objections.
Then they have the missplaced arrogance to mock those who think more deeply than they do when they raise these issues. I don't know if Gay marriage is alright or not. But I know that the advocates have been unable to address these issues and that failure leaves me unconvinced that this change from the way things have been through most of know human history is an idea worth pursuing.
I agree that discrimination is not necessarily wrong. I'd go on to say that it's necessary and agree that despite that, there are applications that have a destructive effect in societies and toward other human beings such that we should wish to avoid them. In the examples I gave, "discrimination" always referred to the socially or unjustly personally destructive applications.
Prove it. So far yu have stated this several times without being able to create a convincing argument that what you aver is true. Until you can produce evidence to show that every counter-example provided so far is false, your arguments are simply ineffective, irrelevant, and logically unsound.
This is a dodge you've made in a desperate effort to defend your indefensible assertions. Describe a flaw in my assertion and I'll show you why your "flaw" is insufficient.
All you've offered is your FALLACIOUS slippery slope distraction.
Feel free to try again.
Oh, yes they do. Outside of the reaction of outsiders, what is the problem with homosexual relationships? There is none. There's no abusive or unhealthy aspect that is inherently involved. There are issues with incest and polygamy that are self-contained, regardless of whether they're socially accepted or not.
"The physiological objection depends on an intent to reproduce by an exchange of genetic material between the married siblings. Just as that argument is disqualified in Gay marriages, it can also be disqualified for incestuous marriages. If siblings love each other and want to spend their lives together and are aware of the greater risk of inbred mutation and vulnerability to defects and agree not to reproduce in that manner, why shouldn't they be married?"
It would seem to me that such agreement is shaky. Do you really trust the judgment of someone who wants to marry within their family? And what happens if there is a pregnancy? Will religious conservatives say "OK, here's a good example of a time where it's alright to murder a human being?" That's their phrasing, of course, not mine.
"This is the problem. The same arguments used to convince people that traditional marriage should be expanded to include Gay marriage can also be used to justify these other variations from that tradition. But when Opponents or questioners of the change try to point that out, advocates engage in the same thoughtless prejudgements that those who would not even consider Gay couple's requests to be able to get married engage in. In so doing they have failed to answer all of the questions and ease all of the doubts because they've failed to address all of the objections."
The problem is that opponents to gay marriage are incredibly simplistic in their thinking. There are several factors as to whether something should be accepted or not. Potential harm, traditional values, legal necessity, and whether the behavior is natural or chosen. It's very difficult to argue that homosexuality is chosen, there's no potential harm, and if there's going to be equality under the law then marriage is an absolute necessity. All of that leaves the concern over traditional values in the dust. Incest is a completely different story. There is certainly harm, it's psychologically unhealthy and damaging to the family dynamic. It's not an orientation, so someone interested in it could easily find a spouse from a pool of millions of people not related to them. There's no legal necessity. It's much deeper than "this is weird to me, so then something else I think is weird will be approved next".
"Then they have the missplaced arrogance to mock those who think more deeply than they do when they raise these issues. I don't know if Gay marriage is alright or not. But I know that the advocates have been unable to address these issues and that failure leaves me unconvinced that this change from the way things have been through most of know human history is an idea worth pursuing."
You could easily make the same argument for interracial marriage. "The people advocating this are unable to address these hypothetical scenarios about marriages that are completely different from what they want". So people shouldn't be able to marry outside of their race if these concerns aren't addressed, right? It's completely idiotic. If there's a case for rights, then that stands on its own. If there isn't a case for rights for something else, then it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and it will surely fail if it were to ever be seriously advocated.
"I agree that discrimination is not necessarily wrong. I'd go on to say that it's necessary and agree that despite that, there are applications that have a destructive effect in societies and toward other human beings such that we should wish to avoid them. In the examples I gave, "discrimination" always referred to the socially or unjustly personally destructive applications."
How is it "personally destructive" to tell someone they can't marry their sister? Even most children understand that you can't always do what you want to do (my grandchildren excluded). You have to play within the rules of society, and there has to be a strong case made for society to change those rules. That case is not being made, and so someone heartbroken over not being able to commit legal incest can just get over it.
"It would seem to me that such agreement is shaky. Do you really trust the judgment of someone who wants to marry within their family?"
Does it not occur to you that many people believe that the commitment in Gay relationships and observance of safe sexual practices ar ealso "somewhat shaky." Your lack of respect fo Incestuous couples is irrelevant, just as you would like the lack of respect some have for Gay couples to be irrelevant. Since the 1980s a plague has swept America with the overwhelming number of victims being Gay men, women who have had sex with Gay men and children born to exposed adults. If health is your concern, Gays are not a good group to use for comparison.
Your concerns would apply to Incestuous couples whether they were married or not. Deny them marriage rights and they'll still be couples. Therefore, why deny them marriage rights? Let them come out of the closet and society can better intervene to prevent the problems that concern you. (Sound familiar?)
"The problem is that opponents to gay marriage are incredibly simplistic in their thinking." This is the magical thinking. Rather tthan allow that the different perspectives and experiences we have could produce legitimate differences in values and assessments you have resorted to trying to preemptively disqualify the beliefs of those that disagree with you. My friend, the world is so vast and so complex that none of us can comprehend it. None of us knows the truth with certainty. Your views can stand or fall based on your experience and ability to interpret them ojectively. you don't need to resort to such strategies. There are advocates among your opposition as well qualified as any among your allies. There is no fundamental intellectual, educational or experiential difference between the two sides in this debate.
The one new point you made in this section was about nature vs. free-will. People feel attraction to other people. When a man is attracted to another man we call that homosexuality, (and I side with those who say it's most often a matter of nature not will). When a brother and brother are attracted to each other, it is nature, not will. When two sisters are attracted to each other, it is nature, not will. When a brother and a sister are attracted, it is nature, not will. Only in this last example is there any concern about health and that is for offspring. We can tie tubes now, even making it reversable. So the only objection you've raised in this is against incestuous reproduction and that can be dealt with, if necessary, as a condition of marriage. But you have no objection to same sex siblings getting married so how are you now going to exclude hetero incestuous couples? The issue isn't as simple as you thought, is it?
"You have to play within the rules of society, and there has to be a strong case made for society to change those rules. That case is not being made, and so someone heartbroken over not being able to commit legal incest can just get over it."
What would you say to the opponent of Gay marriage that made this same statement? Would you accept such an argument? Or rebel against it? You see this is the thing about logic and reason. It isn't on your side or mine. It's neutral and its rules have to be applied the same for you as for me. If they're not, then it isn't Logic or Reason.
[In this use, "personally" might have been clearer if I'd used the term "individually". It's personal vs. societal or societal vs. individual. My error.]
I'm talking about judgment. There's no judgment involved in simply being gay. Your shtick seems to be pretending that there are no distinctions, and any demonstration that there are is just "magical thinking". Again, there's no secular basis for opposing gay marriage, while there is for incest. The disease argument works against you, because allowing for marriage would discourage promiscuity.
"Therefore, why deny them marriage rights?"
Because then they won't have rights. If people want to do this on their own, then they're on their own, and they make the appropriate sacrifice in doing so.
"My friend, the world is so vast and so complex that none of us can comprehend it. None of us knows the truth with certainty."
Oh, yes, I've seen this gobbledygook before. Nothing is known for certain, it's all a big mystery, blah blah blah. We still have reasoning and objective reality. Nobody said we know truth about these things with certainty, so that's a straw man argument. I laid out a very solid rationale as to why there's a difference between gay marriage and these other issues, and you unload a truckload of doublespeak. And I wonder why the same thing doesn't apply to your assertions. The people who believe that homosexuality is wrong also live in this vast, mysterious world where nobody can say anything for certain. Why am I supposed to give a damn what they think, then?
"But you have no objection to same sex siblings getting married so how are you now going to exclude hetero incestuous couples?"
Where did I say that? I think that's very psychologically unhealthy. It's also clear that potential harm was one of the factors at hand. You could argue that child molestation is natural behavior, but it's still not acceptable. And again, none of that is orientation. Just about everyone has had relationships fail, but they move on. Someone denied marriage to a relative can marry someone else and be perfectly happy. A gay person (who you admit is typically not gay by choice) has no such option.
"What would you say to the opponent of Gay marriage that made this same statement? Would you accept such an argument? Or rebel against it?"
But there is a strong case that has been made for gay marriage. Society should change the rules in that case. It should not change the rules for other forms of marriage. I'm not sure how you think I'm applying any logic that you aren't allowed to use yourself.
Finally, I notice you didn't mention the point about interracial marriage. What a shock.
Your premise is flawed. If incestuous couples can only get married if they agree not to reproduce, then it's not technically a marriage, as it has that caveat. Nobody gets married, saying "we promise not to procreate." They can make that choice if they want, but it's never a pre-condition for the state to give them a license. No such restriction has to be implemented with a homosexual marriage, due to the physiological limitations between the spouses.
Not to mention, what if, under your ridiculous hypothetical, the incestuous couple do agree not to procreate, but, oops, the condom breaks? Accidents happen, and there's no fool proof method to prevent pregnancy except abstinence, and placing that restriction on a marriage is even more ridiculous. What then, mandatory abortion?
Then your arguments get sillier. In fact your wife CANNOT stop you from having a series of brief affairs. Adultery is not illegal in a majority of states. She CAN however withdraw her consent to being married to YOU if you choose to pursue your affairs.
It is frankly bizzarre for anyone to say EITHER that Billy is quicker and deeper thinker than us because he is so sick that thoughs of homosexuality leads him to immediatly think of bestiality. Ah no he is sicker just ask Andrea Makris. The facts are simple. There is no credible reason to deny this right to gay couples and EVERY reason that the right comes up with was tried to support miscegenation laws and when those laws were overturned it didnt lead to any of the idiotic paranoid what ifs that were postited then. No it is that YOU and O'Reilly are more AFRAID than we are. More afraid that unless EVERYONE does things in the way YOU WANT something vaguely sinister will result. NO ONE has come up with a valid reason gay people should not marry other than they dont WANT them to. And yes it is plain silly to talk about incest and bestiality in this context. If you cant see that then get help.
Your last paragraph is a study in projection. You mean you didnt think Billys argument was falling back on mockery. Are you seriously positing that YOU and Bill are more INTELLIGENT than we are? REALLY?? Ok good luck with that one.
I can assure you, my dog loves me and can pass any challenge that you can devise that tests that love Your dog can read a contract and verbally or by signature consent? Cool!
19 year olds and I vote to have an expanded marriage over the objection of my current wife? Majorities rule, right? Actually no, not in every case. There are crazy things called laws and statutes that can get in the way of what you want.
Why should that be grounds for my current wife to charge me with some kind of misconduct and use it as grounds to break our marriage contract? Because you did. You can't rewrite contracts AFTER you've entered into them.
Mockery is the resort of those who cannot argue through reasoning Well maybe, but really, when you make it this easy, who can resist. Also, this superior intelligence you are claiming, I think I speak for most when I say, "we're waiting..."
2. Why do you want to deny other species the right those civil rights for which they may qualify? Do you hate them so? Next you'll say that men shouldn't be allowed to marry men because they don't qualify as women.
3. There are laws in most states against Gay marriage. Are you saying such laws cannot be challenged?
4. You apparently haven't studied the Chrysler deal. Besides, just because I'm already in a marriage, why should my wife have the right to deny me additional love and happiness. "I thought love was a good thing." As one Gay marriage advocate argued.
5. You said it was "easy" but you failed to present an argument that does not also chip away at the grounds for legalizing Gay marriage.
2. Other species do not have civil rights. Civil rights apply to persons (notice I didn't say "citizens," they apply to "persons." An animal is not a person. I'm not surprised you don't know that.
3. Those laws are being challenged. And being overturned. What do you believe is happeneing that you would make such an absurd statement?
4. Is your wife a Chrysler? Did you cheat on her by test-driving a Maserati?
5. Could you translate this "point" into coherence? It is internally inconsistent and senseless.
This is serious stuff for serious people and no one is taking you seriously. Your arguments maybe fun over a few drinks with friends, but that's about the size of it. Moreover, because you keep coming back to it, it's interesting that you want to pass laws that make it ok to get laid by multiple women and that your wife has to shut up and eat it. You must love and respect her very much.
If reich-wingers had any self awareness they would realize how stupid they sound.
Of course people can get this weird. Hey when you have people eating anything on this GOD's green earth, ANYTHING can happen.
You late bloomer, you.
In fact, I think one of my earliest sexual thoughts came while admiring a drawing of Scarlet Witch in an Avengers comic.
No wonder I'm so warped!
If this guy isn't the ultimate moron, I don't know who is.
time-wasting discussions is that they have nothing better - these are their best arguments. O'Reilly like fast food is popular, but is lacking in quality and substance. Consume enough of his worthless output and it will probably do you a lot of harm; if not that, it certainly won't do you any good - well, maybe you can get a good laugh out of it. Turtles, goats... come on, BillO, quit exposing your innermost secret desires on the rest of us. We are not interested in who you'd like to loofa next.
Ever since Bill O'Reilly reached sexual maturity. BTW, he and his goat have a common law marriage.... :-)
Don't they see the hypocrisy of calling for the end of government with one breath and demanding that the government regulate the decisions people are making about what to do with their own bodies.
What do they think would happen if we lived in a land were there is no law and we can all make the decisions we want. Do they think that all the gays wil be "cured" and everyone will suddenly choose to stay abstenate outside of marriage?
These people have a serious break from reality.
Obviously this is just too much dang work. Someone should take Bill O to the SPCA and have him put out of our misery!
One of these days, he head will explode on set.
Then again, Bill isn't capable of logic, so all is just as it should be in this little corner of the universe I call planet Earth.
Randy
What conservatives are saying is that as gay marriage is legalized, triad marriage advocates will then use the same arguments to seek legalization of their marriages. Looking at the basis that the courts have used for legalizing gay marriage, I do not see any way for them not to legalize triad marriages now that the precedent has been set.
For a long time, the argument that homosexual marriage was unnatural and beyond common sense prevailed in keeping marriage heterosexual. What is the argument against triad marriage? Is it unnatural? Is it beyond common sense? Are these the only arguments against it? If hetero is not fundamental, then why is two?
What do you believe about triad marriages? Should they be licensed? Why or why not?
How many people are really interested in triad marriages? Just because Fox is able to dig up people to argue for it as a way to argue against gay marriage doesn't mean that there is or will be support for this issue. And again, threesomes would be a choice not an actual orientation.
On the other hand homosexuality is not a choice. Gay people make up a large enough segment of society to argue for and to receive their constitutional rights.
Society will never interpret the constitution to allow people to choose to marry goats, turtles or day lilies. The courts have already ruled against polygamy and any children born of incestuous relationships run the risk of having major birth defects.
Exactly. That's the key point. If it was a choice and gay marriage was legalized, then I would see the problem.
Everyone should be able to marry one person that they have the ability to love and have a healthy relationship with. Gay men being able to marry women (or vice-versa) doesn't qualify. People interested in incest can find someone outside their family. Those interested in polygamy can marry one person and keep other spouses unofficial. Anyone into bestiality can seek help and then marry a human. Legalizing gay marriage and ignoring the other issues is perfectly consistent with that principle.
Now try - Those interested in homosexuality can keep their Gay spouses unofficial.
"Anyone into bestiality can seek help and then marry a human."
Now try - Anyone into homosexuality can seek help and then marry someone of the opposite sex.
"Legalizing gay marriage and ignoring the other issues is perfectly consistent with that principle."
Now try - Legalizing gay marriage, incest and polygamy is perfectly consistent with that principle.
Issue resolved?
Why? Equal protection under the law would dictate that they should be allowed full rights. You admit it's natural orientation, there's no harm demonstrated, so there's no secular reasoning for denying it.
"Now try - Anyone into homosexuality can seek help and then marry someone of the opposite sex."
Really? Has homosexuality been "cured"? Do you imagine that someone could change your mind and make you attracted to a person of the same sex?
"Now try - Legalizing gay marriage, incest and polygamy is perfectly consistent with that principle."
Are you kidding? How is "marrying one person" consistent with polygamy? And it should be clear that I don't consider incestuous relationships to be "healthy", and I really don't know anyone who does.
RT
www.privacy-resources.us.tc
Rob
The only moral standard here is Biblical. Society isn't required to abide by that, any more than it's required to pass laws against eating lobster or wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. There are more objective and secular moral standards which apply to other marriage scenarios.
Otherwise, if it's a concern about gay men having consensual relations, then putting them in with the women or having separate berthing isn't going to change anything. Do the lesbians engage in behavior that makes their enlistment undesirable? If not, why would it be any different for men?
I believe he meant "orifice"; it's a common mistake.
Why is it these bible thumping ass-bags are always ready to quote the bible on the "one man, one woman" argument, yet they seem to fall short on remembering that portions of the bible PROMOTE multiple marriages, concubines, and extra-marital affairs FOR MEN.
Oh, and if a woman has an extra-marital affair, well she's a whore and stoned to death.
WTF O'Reilly? WTF????
ITS IMPOSSIBLE for a human being and another species to EVER get married, WHY? Simple: In order for anyone to get married, you must have equal agreement, in other words the person you want to marry must also want to marry you, and must also be able to put that INTO LEGAL WRITING USING THEIR SIGNATURE as well as IN VERBAL contract(for example "yes I will marry you!" and "I do!" when the pastor asks if you want to be married to the other person
Its the dumbest argument I have heard since "The Earth is Flat" and that "God created the world in 7 days" Seriously this guy and anyone who believes him is extremely pathetic and I laugh at your incompetence and sad interpretation of logic and common sense.
No animal, or child, for that matter, can enter into a legally binding contract. Period. End of discussion.
-"Easy to refute wingnuts" approves of triad and gay marriage for libertarian reasons.
-Worrierking disaproves triad/approves gay by saying that gay is more popular as well as saying that gay is an "orientation" and triad is not.
-Brabantio disapproves triad/approves gay by using the "two is fundamental, herero is not" argument. He also says the second spouse should be unofficial.
The first response, I believe is the only logical response. If you allow one, you cannot deny the same right to the other.
For the popularity argument, go back fifty years. How "popular" was the gay marriage movement then compared to the polygamous movement now? You might respond by saying that there were a lot of gays in the closet that were not speaking out because society labeled them sexual deviants. How many people today would be interested in a three-way relationship but never vocalize it because they would be labeled sexually deviant? You say the courts have ruled against polygamy. Well in the past the courts ruled against gay marriage but now the courts are taking the other view. Do triad-ists not "make up a large enough segment of society to argue for and receive their constitutional rights"? Isn't this whole thing about minority rights? Should the rights of the minority be denied just because the majority doesn't think their desires are valid, worrierking?
Saying that homosexuality is not a choice but polygamy is seems to set a double standard. I don't think homosexuality is a choice, just like I don't think wanting to have multiple partners is a choice. It is a desire, an attraction, an impulse, something that comes about not by rational thought but by other psychological mechanisms. Who are you to say one set of desires by consenting adults is valid but another set of desires by consenting adults is not?
Brabantio uses the "two is fundamental, hetero is not" argument. Who are you to decide that two is fundamental? Is it because it seems "natural" to you? Does it just "make common sense"? I brought this issue up in my original post, but you did not justify why you believe two is fundamental. You simply say, "everyone should be able to marry one person". Why? Who are you to say that it is unnatural or deviant to demand a marriage to more than one person?
You also say that triad-ists should keep their second partner unofficial in much the same way that conservatives don't think a gay marriage should be official.
I'm going to pose a very direct question to worrierking, Brabantio, and anyone else who approves of gay marriage and disapproves of triads: What would you say to three triad-ists standing before you who ask why you believe they should not be able to get married?