Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[Seawytch]

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

That's not why it's abnormal/perverted. It's abnormal and perverted because it is contrary to nature. The body parts of animals (including humans) are designed for heterosexual sex, not anything else. Would one walk on his hands instead of feet ? No, of course not. Feet were designed for walking, not hands. The analogy is obvious,

So...you want to dictate what kind of sex people have.

There is no such thing as "kind of sex people have" There is only one kind of sex. Heterosexual. Anything else is a perversion, engaged in by perverts. If they want to be idiots and engage PRIVATELY in that, that could do so, but doing it openly, is HARM to the normal population in that 1). It is disgusting to see and 2). it may influence young, impressionable, unstable kids to acquire the same ailment.

Wait...so now you're saying that fellatio, cunnilingus, analingus and anal penetration are okay as long as it's only straight people doing it? My, aren't you selfish.

Who is having sex "openly"? That's a crime you know.

Gotta spell it out for you ? OK. Penises are designed for vaginas. Mouths are for talking, singing, eating, and drinking. Got it now ? Try not to be a pervert.

What do you plan on doing with all the straight folks not following your narrow definition of what constitutes sex?

Graph

 

[Seawytch]

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

yes, of course it is. Always has been, always will be. homosexuality is not a normal condition of adult humans. It is a mental aberation that causes the infected to be attracted sexually to the same sex. It is a mental condition. Mental abnormalities are not normal, thats why they are called abnormalities.

Says you. And we're not going to strip any gay or lesbians of their rights because of your personal opinion.

they have the same rights that I have. A gay man can marry a gay woman or a straight woman. A gay woman can marry a gay or straight man.

two people of the same sex is not a marriage. If you want it to be, then change the constitution.

How has that argument held up in court so far?

Its not over yet, we are still in the first quarter of this game. Lots more time, lots more court cases. Lots more votes.

No there isn't. This is "game over" for the anti gay bigots when the SCOTUS rules in a few months.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal? Where in nature among the mammals does that occur?

btw, it's virtually impossible for a woman to get pregnant via anal sex - and you say preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. You've just made anal sex normal.

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

yes, of course it is. Always has been, always will be. homosexuality is not a normal condition of adult humans. It is a mental aberation that causes the infected to be attracted sexually to the same sex. It is a mental condition. Mental abnormalities are not normal, thats why they are called abnormalities.

Says you. And we're not going to strip any gay or lesbians of their rights because of your personal opinion.

they have the same rights that I have. A gay man can marry a gay woman or a straight woman. A gay woman can marry a gay or straight man.

two people of the same sex is not a marriage. If you want it to be, then change the constitution.

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, we know this to be a fact because same-sex couples are in fact getting married.

Consequently, neither the law nor the Constitution need to be 'changed.'

The only change that's warranted is to invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution which seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal? Where in nature among the mammals does that occur?

btw, it's virtually impossible for a woman to get pregnant via anal sex - and you say preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. You've just made anal sex normal.

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

yes, of course it is. Always has been, always will be. homosexuality is not a normal condition of adult humans. It is a mental aberation that causes the infected to be attracted sexually to the same sex. It is a mental condition. Mental abnormalities are not normal, thats why they are called abnormalities.

Says you. And we're not going to strip any gay or lesbians of their rights because of your personal opinion.

they have the same rights that I have. A gay man can marry a gay woman or a straight woman. A gay woman can marry a gay or straight man.

two people of the same sex is not a marriage. If you want it to be, then change the constitution.

A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry that same woman.

That is discrimination. That is allowing the man to do something denied to the woman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you insist that something is abnormal or perverted just because a minority of people do it?

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

Uhhh, how exactly do you jump from homosexuality to birth control? Male/female sex is normal, preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. gay sex is not normal.

now, move on.

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal? Where in nature among the mammals does that occur?

btw, it's virtually impossible for a woman to get pregnant via anal sex - and you say preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. You've just made anal sex normal.

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

lol, really? So a man has anal with a woman, that's normal. A man has anal with a man, that's abnormal.

lol, you people get more fucking retarded by the hour.

 

[NYcarbineer]

its not abnormal because only a minority do it. Its abnormal because of human mammalian biology.

Its abnormal by the same criteria that physical birth defects are abnormal. We don't discriminate because of abnormalities, but we don't call them normal either.

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

Uhhh, how exactly do you jump from homosexuality to birth control? Male/female sex is normal, preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. gay sex is not normal.

now, move on.

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal? Where in nature among the mammals does that occur?

btw, it's virtually impossible for a woman to get pregnant via anal sex - and you say preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. You've just made anal sex normal.

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

 

[Seawytch]

 

[Skylar]

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

yes, of course it is. Always has been, always will be. homosexuality is not a normal condition of adult humans. It is a mental aberation that causes the infected to be attracted sexually to the same sex. It is a mental condition. Mental abnormalities are not normal, thats why they are called abnormalities.

Says you. And we're not going to strip any gay or lesbians of their rights because of your personal opinion.

they have the same rights that I have. A gay man can marry a gay woman or a straight woman. A gay woman can marry a gay or straight man.

As was made so clear on Loving V. Virginia, the restriction itself must meet constitutional muster. And in the case of interracial marriage bans....it couldn't. Even though the law applied to both blacks and whites.

Similarly, for a ban on same sex marriage, you need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. Same sex marriage bans have none of the three.

Rendering them invalid and unconstitutional.

Of course they have good reasons. To allow same sex marriage is to validate sexual perversion, mass insanity, and a harmful display of abnormality to kids.

Says you. Your argument is again your personal opinion. The courts don't recognize those arguments as valid, nor has the state even tried to present them.

 

[Skylar]

So birth control is abnormal too, I suppose.

Uhhh, how exactly do you jump from homosexuality to birth control? Male/female sex is normal, preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. gay sex is not normal.

now, move on.

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal? Where in nature among the mammals does that occur?

btw, it's virtually impossible for a woman to get pregnant via anal sex - and you say preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. You've just made anal sex normal.

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

 

[Redfish]

Uhhh, how exactly do you jump from homosexuality to birth control? Male/female sex is normal, preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. gay sex is not normal.

now, move on.

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal? Where in nature among the mammals does that occur?

btw, it's virtually impossible for a woman to get pregnant via anal sex - and you say preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. You've just made anal sex normal.

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

But the way to resolve this is to let each state vote and abide by the will of the people of that state. Gay couples wanting to marry can move to a state that sanctions gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage, the constitution does not address marriage.

The only reason that the feds get involved is because they want to find ways to tax all kinds of human activity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal? Where in nature among the mammals does that occur?

btw, it's virtually impossible for a woman to get pregnant via anal sex - and you say preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. You've just made anal sex normal.

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

But the way to resolve this is to let each state vote and abide by the will of the people of that state. Gay couples wanting to marry can move to a state that sanctions gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage, the constitution does not address marriage.

The only reason that the feds get involved is because they want to find ways to tax all kinds of human activity.

If two people of the same sex can have sex, then biology supports gays having sex.

 

[Redfish]

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

But the way to resolve this is to let each state vote and abide by the will of the people of that state. Gay couples wanting to marry can move to a state that sanctions gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage, the constitution does not address marriage.

The only reason that the feds get involved is because they want to find ways to tax all kinds of human activity.

If two people of the same sex can have sex, then biology supports gays having sex.

depends on the definition of "having sex" .. should we consult bubba clinton on it? According to him having sex only occurs when a penis enters a vagina.

 

[Skylar]

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

But the way to resolve this is to let each state vote and abide by the will of the people of that state. Gay couples wanting to marry can move to a state that sanctions gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage, the constitution does not address marriage.

The only reason that the feds get involved is because they want to find ways to tax all kinds of human activity.

If two people of the same sex can have sex, then biology supports gays having sex.

depends on the definition of "having sex" .. should we consult bubba clinton on it? According to him having sex only occurs when a penis enters a vagina.

When your argument relies on Bubba for the definition of sex, you know your argument is completely fucked.

 

[Skylar]

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal? Where in nature among the mammals does that occur?

btw, it's virtually impossible for a woman to get pregnant via anal sex - and you say preventing unwanted pregnancy is normal. You've just made anal sex normal.

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

No, its about homophobia or religion. With biology being used as an awkward, second tier argument that's laughably inadequate.

As the worst thing you can say about homosexualtiy is that its unproductive. And so what? Neither is head. Neither is masterbation. Neither is birth control. I wouldn't consider any of those valid grounds for denying marriage either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

anything a man a woman consent to do together is normal for them. two men doing anal is not normal, two women doing mutual cunniligus is not normal. same sex sex is not normal.

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

No, its about homophobia or religion. With biology being used as an awkward, second tier argument that's laughably inadequate.

As the worst thing you can say about homosexualtiy is that its unproductive. And so what? Neither is head. Neither is masterbation. Neither is birth control. I wouldn't consider any of those valid grounds for denying marriage either.

Or denying marriage to a war veteran whose wounds rendered him incapable of having sex or reproduction. Or denying re-marriage to a widow after menopause.

The arguments against same sex marriage rights are so absurd that they really, in their own way,

make the argument FOR same sex marriage rights.

 

[Seawytch]

So...to you...a man and a woman consenting to anal sex is normal and a man and a woman doing oral sex are normal.

Ah....so it IS about gender only.

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

But the way to resolve this is to let each state vote and abide by the will of the people of that state. Gay couples wanting to marry can move to a state that sanctions gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage, the constitution does not address marriage.

The only reason that the feds get involved is because they want to find ways to tax all kinds of human activity.

If two people of the same sex can have sex, then biology supports gays having sex.

depends on the definition of "having sex" .. should we consult bubba clinton on it? According to him having sex only occurs when a penis enters a vagina.

Actually if you weren't being a disingenuous anti gay bigot, you would know that Clinton's lawyers argued the difference between sexual relations and sexual intercourse.

If you want to teach your kids that anal and oral sex aren't sex, that's up to you.

 

[Redfish]

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

But the way to resolve this is to let each state vote and abide by the will of the people of that state. Gay couples wanting to marry can move to a state that sanctions gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage, the constitution does not address marriage.

The only reason that the feds get involved is because they want to find ways to tax all kinds of human activity.

If two people of the same sex can have sex, then biology supports gays having sex.

depends on the definition of "having sex" .. should we consult bubba clinton on it? According to him having sex only occurs when a penis enters a vagina.

Actually if you weren't being a disingenuous anti gay bigot, you would know that Clinton's lawyers argued the difference between sexual relations and sexual intercourse.

If you want to teach your kids that anal and oral sex aren't sex, that's up to you.

and what do you teach your kids? that they can decide if they want to be straight or gay when they reach puberty? that they can go back and forth? that they can be bisexual? asexual? anything goes, right?

Now, since that is established. What argument do you put forth against all forms of multiple marriage?

They will use the exact same arguments that you are using---------discrimination, equal rights, "should be able to marry who they love" , etc. What legal defense can you bring against multiple marriage?

 

[Redfish]

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

But the way to resolve this is to let each state vote and abide by the will of the people of that state. Gay couples wanting to marry can move to a state that sanctions gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage, the constitution does not address marriage.

The only reason that the feds get involved is because they want to find ways to tax all kinds of human activity.

If two people of the same sex can have sex, then biology supports gays having sex.

depends on the definition of "having sex" .. should we consult bubba clinton on it? According to him having sex only occurs when a penis enters a vagina.

Actually if you weren't being a disingenuous anti gay bigot, you would know that Clinton's lawyers argued the difference between sexual relations and sexual intercourse.

If you want to teach your kids that anal and oral sex aren't sex, that's up to you.

So a blow job in the oval office was OK, but if he screwed her it would not be? Does that make sense to you?

 

[Redfish]

They're suddenly trying to cobble together a new position because they know they've lost the argument on their original stand.

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

But the way to resolve this is to let each state vote and abide by the will of the people of that state. Gay couples wanting to marry can move to a state that sanctions gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage, the constitution does not address marriage.

The only reason that the feds get involved is because they want to find ways to tax all kinds of human activity.

If two people of the same sex can have sex, then biology supports gays having sex.

depends on the definition of "having sex" .. should we consult bubba clinton on it? According to him having sex only occurs when a penis enters a vagina.

Actually if you weren't being a disingenuous anti gay bigot, you would know that Clinton's lawyers argued the difference between sexual relations and sexual intercourse.

If you want to teach your kids that anal and oral sex aren't sex, that's up to you.

Well, wytchey, I am quite sure we agree on one thing-----------------Tantaros is hot ! But she is also heterosexual-------sorry, but you can have Rosie O'Donnel.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The gay marriage opponents are at an inherent disadvantage. As they can't argue their actual motivation in court...which is overwhelmingly homophobia or religious conviction. As neither is a valid legal argument. So they're left as half assed second tier arguments that also don't work.

you guys just don't get it. Its not homophobia or religion. Its biology and mamallian anatomy.

But the way to resolve this is to let each state vote and abide by the will of the people of that state. Gay couples wanting to marry can move to a state that sanctions gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage, the constitution does not address marriage.

The only reason that the feds get involved is because they want to find ways to tax all kinds of human activity.

If two people of the same sex can have sex, then biology supports gays having sex.

depends on the definition of "having sex" .. should we consult bubba clinton on it? According to him having sex only occurs when a penis enters a vagina.

Actually if you weren't being a disingenuous anti gay bigot, you would know that Clinton's lawyers argued the difference between sexual relations and sexual intercourse.

If you want to teach your kids that anal and oral sex aren't sex, that's up to you.

and what do you teach your kids? that they can decide if they want to be straight or gay when they reach puberty? that they can go back and forth? that they can be bisexual? asexual? anything goes, right?

Now, since that is established. What argument do you put forth against all forms of multiple marriage?

They will use the exact same arguments that you are using---------discrimination, equal rights, "should be able to marry who they love" , etc. What legal defense can you bring against multiple marriage?

Incorrect.

No marriage law in the United States is written to accommodate three or more persons.

The mistake you make is attempting to compare two issue which have nothing to do with each other; bigamy laws are Constitutional and do not manifest as discrimination because they're applied to everyone equally. That's not the case with same-sex couples, who are excluded from marriage law they're eligible to participate in solely because they are gay, which is un-Constitutional.