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

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.


wrong, they have everything to do with each other. Or are you saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't involve a class of people that you support?

Why do you hate multiple marriage people and want to deprive them of their civil rights to marry who they love and want to be with?
 
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.


wrong, they have everything to do with each other. Or are you saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't involve a class of people that you support?

Why do you hate multiple marriage people and want to deprive them of their civil rights to marry who they love and want to be with?

The Court has decided once on polygamy. If the Court has to revisit it, so be it.

No state that has legalized same sex marriage has been forced to legalize polygamy, so your slippery slope theory has yet to materialize.

One thing does not necessarily lead to another thing. That is why the Slippery Slope argument is classified as a logical fallacy.
 
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.
Nonsense.

It's about homophobia and religion, it's about the fear of change, diversity, and dissent common to you and most others on the right, and it's about the propensity of most authoritarian conservatives to seek to compel conformity.

The 14th Amendment affords us the resolution, the only remaining issue is the states which refuse to obey the Constitution by denying same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the states have no authority whatsoever to determine who will or will not have his civil rights, American citizens do not forfeit their civil rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence. Americans have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, to live in any state they so desire, where your idiotic notion of gay couples moving to another state to marry is as repugnant to the Constitution as the state measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.
 
coming soon folks by those who is in charge of deeming what is "truthful" or not

 
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.


wrong, they have everything to do with each other. Or are you saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't involve a class of people that you support?

Why do you hate multiple marriage people and want to deprive them of their civil rights to marry who they love and want to be with?

The Court has decided once on polygamy. If the Court has to revisit it, so be it.

No state that has legalized same sex marriage has been forced to legalize polygamy, so your slippery slope theory has yet to materialize.

One thing does not necessarily lead to another thing. That is why the Slippery Slope argument is classified as a logical fallacy.


Yes, it does and it will. Wait and see.

Now, I am tired of the gay agenda threads and the constant barrage of left wing talking points,

We are not going to agree on this so continuing the back and forth is pointless. Let the people vote, let the will of the people prevail. I am willing to accept the will of the people, are you?
 
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.
Nonsense.

It's about homophobia and religion, it's about the fear of change, diversity, and dissent common to you and most others on the right, and it's about the propensity of most authoritarian conservatives to seek to compel conformity.

The 14th Amendment affords us the resolution, the only remaining issue is the states which refuse to obey the Constitution by denying same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the states have no authority whatsoever to determine who will or will not have his civil rights, American citizens do not forfeit their civil rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence. Americans have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, to live in any state they so desire, where your idiotic notion of gay couples moving to another state to marry is as repugnant to the Constitution as the state measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.


the words "gay marriage" do not appear in the 14th or anywhere in the constitution. the words "marriage is between two persons" do not appear anywhere either.

Pot smokers can move to states where its legal to destroy your lungs with pot, why shouldn't gay couples do the same thing?
 
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.


wrong, they have everything to do with each other. Or are you saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't involve a class of people that you support?

Why do you hate multiple marriage people and want to deprive them of their civil rights to marry who they love and want to be with?

The Court has decided once on polygamy. If the Court has to revisit it, so be it.

No state that has legalized same sex marriage has been forced to legalize polygamy, so your slippery slope theory has yet to materialize.

One thing does not necessarily lead to another thing. That is why the Slippery Slope argument is classified as a logical fallacy.


Yes, it does and it will. Wait and see.

Now, I am tired of the gay agenda threads and the constant barrage of left wing talking points,

We are not going to agree on this so continuing the back and forth is pointless. Let the people vote, let the will of the people prevail. I am willing to accept the will of the people, are you?

National referendums aren't constitutional. You want an unconstitutional concoction to settle the same sex marriage issue? lol, big surprise.

When you inevitably lose, where will you flee to? How about Russia? I hear hating gay people is still very fashionable over there.
 
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.
Nonsense.

It's about homophobia and religion, it's about the fear of change, diversity, and dissent common to you and most others on the right, and it's about the propensity of most authoritarian conservatives to seek to compel conformity.

The 14th Amendment affords us the resolution, the only remaining issue is the states which refuse to obey the Constitution by denying same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the states have no authority whatsoever to determine who will or will not have his civil rights, American citizens do not forfeit their civil rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence. Americans have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, to live in any state they so desire, where your idiotic notion of gay couples moving to another state to marry is as repugnant to the Constitution as the state measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.


the words "gay marriage" do not appear in the 14th or anywhere in the constitution. the words "marriage is between two persons" do not appear anywhere either.

Pot smokers can move to states where its legal to destroy your lungs with pot, why shouldn't gay couples do the same thing?

What does the 9th amendment say about rights?
 
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.

Going fishing is not normal, since most Americans don't do it. Right?
 
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.


wrong, they have everything to do with each other. Or are you saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't involve a class of people that you support?

Why do you hate multiple marriage people and want to deprive them of their civil rights to marry who they love and want to be with?
You still don't understand, likely willfully.

Bigamy laws do not 'discriminate,' there is no 'discrimination,' acceptable or otherwise; 'discrimination' cannot exist because there is no marriage law written to accommodate three or more persons.

You're trying – and failing – to contrive and propagate this ignorant, ridiculous 'argument' that marriage is some sort of 'social club' anyone can join, it's not.

Marriage is contract law, it has specific and clearly defined criteria as to who may enter into a marriage contract. And the most fundamental criterion is that marriage is between two consenting adult partners, same- or opposite sex – two, no more, no less.
 
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.


wrong, they have everything to do with each other. Or are you saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't involve a class of people that you support?

Why do you hate multiple marriage people and want to deprive them of their civil rights to marry who they love and want to be with?

The Court has decided once on polygamy. If the Court has to revisit it, so be it.

No state that has legalized same sex marriage has been forced to legalize polygamy, so your slippery slope theory has yet to materialize.

One thing does not necessarily lead to another thing. That is why the Slippery Slope argument is classified as a logical fallacy.


Yes, it does and it will. Wait and see.

Now, I am tired of the gay agenda threads and the constant barrage of left wing talking points,

We are not going to agree on this so continuing the back and forth is pointless. Let the people vote, let the will of the people prevail. I am willing to accept the will of the people, are you?

You want a national referendum? How do you do that constitutionally?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top