Bill O'Reilly calls out same sex marriage opponents

[The IASM]

It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

[Samuraikoku]

It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

You'll source that, of course. Else we must conclude you're not to be taken seriously.

[Kvatchdom]

It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Elaborate?

[The Emerald Dawn]

It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Jumpin' on the SOURCE-TRAIN!

CHOO CHOO MUFUKA! We be ridin' the rails, checkin' the trails, you get nothin' and your argument fails!

[Xsyne]

Too bad for you the law in this case is most emphatically unconstitutional, because it is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory.

DOMA could withstand a SC challenge though, with the current makeup of the court.

Rather unlikely. There are five justices who would most likely overturn it based on the reasons Trotskylvania gave, and the federalist argument against it could conceivably win over Roberts. Scalia and Thomas, of course, would never vote to overturn. I don't know enough about Alito to even guess as to how he'd rule.

[Samuraikoku]

It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Jumpin' on the SOURCE-TRAIN!

CHOO CHOO MUFUKA! We be ridin' the rails, checkin' the trails, you get nothin' and your argument fails!

Not to poison the well, but look at his sig.

[Northern Skatchbrod]

Jumpin' on the SOURCE-TRAIN!

CHOO CHOO MUFUKA! We be ridin' the rails, checkin' the trails, you get nothin' and your argument fails!

Not to poison the well, but look at his sig.

A real totalitarian would not mention 1984, as the book is extremely against the whole idea of totalitarianism.

[The Emerald Dawn]

DOMA could withstand a SC challenge though, with the current makeup of the court.

Rather unlikely. There are five justices who would most likely overturn it based on the reasons Trotskylvania gave, and the federalist argument against it could conceivably win over Roberts. Scalia and Thomas, of course, would never vote to overturn. I don't know enough about Alito to even guess as to how he'd rule.

See, I thought the states argument would keep Roberts on the DOMA side, and Alito and Kennedy would see little need to overturn it, specifically. But you could very well be more right than I am.

Jumpin' on the SOURCE-TRAIN!

CHOO CHOO MUFUKA! We be ridin' the rails, checkin' the trails, you get nothin' and your argument fails!

Not to poison the well, but look at his sig.

A man can hope.

[Oooghka]

That seems more like a "come on team we have to try harder" than a concession.
"I think the states should do it" is the exactly the side that the conservatives have been on.

not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

I'm curious. Would this fall under no discrimination based on sex either? As in, the only reason why women can't marry women and men can't marry men is because of their sex. How legit is that?

[Wisconsin9]

It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Fortunately there's nothing anywhere that actually supports that claim, so I can sleep soundly completely ignoring you.

[Ethel mermania]

not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

Too bad for you the law in this case is most emphatically unconstitutional, because it is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory.

i dont think it is, and the court will decide that not you.

[Ethel mermania]

not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

I'm curious. Would this fall under no discrimination based on sex either? As in, the only reason why women can't marry women and men can't marry men is because of their sex. How legit is that?

i dont think so, women or men as a group can marry. is sexual orientation a protected class? but we will find out what the court thinks in june or so.

[Divair]

It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Source needed.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Source needed.

Can you post pictures of your ass here?

[Neutraligon]

Source needed.

Can you post pictures of your ass here?

Sure
Ain't it a cute one?

[Northern Skatchbrod]

Can you post pictures of your ass here?

Sure
Ain't it a cute one?

I call bullshit. That ass is animated.

[Neutraligon]

Sure
Ain't it a cute one?

(Image)

I call bullshit. That ass is animated.

Sorry, I have no reason or desire to show you my BS. Maybe this one is a better picture

[Des-Bal]

i dont think so, women or men as a group can marry. is sexual orientation a protected class? but we will find out what the court thinks in june or so.

So could whites or blacks.

[Northern Skatchbrod]

I call bullshit. That ass is animated.

Sorry, I have no reason or desire to show you my BS. Maybe this one is a better picture

Much better.

[Ashmoria]

Yeah, that's just the same bullshit 'third option' where they agree to only kinda hate the gays, only sort of restrict their rights and then sit smugly and wait to be patted on the head for their forward thinking.


Listening to the audio of the hearings yesterday I was flabbergasted that they sounded like the worst of the bullshit arguments made here. Kagan actually had to ask an attorney, "Would you say it was unconstitutional to forbid infertile couples to marry?" and "Whats the harm that's caused by gay marriage?" where the guy had to try and find a way to say there wasn't any but that it was still bad. Even the justices who we assume will be deciding against same sex marriage seemed to be leaning towards punting rather than actually trying to defend this bullshit.

there were some arguments yesterday that I wished I coulda put my 2 cents worth in on.

"when did banning gay marriage start to be unconstitutional" 1776 when the continental congress signed the declaration of independence positing the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it was unconstitutional before we had a constitution!

"what if you forced a kid to call someone his friend when he wasn't his friend? don't you redefine the meaning of friend?" noooo mr justice you have it around the wrong way. its "what if you forced a kid to call a friend an acquaintance because of who the friend is?" THAT devalues the meaning of friendship. and THAT is what civil unions do.

[Disserbia]

This is the only issue for me as well. I think that American citizens who are not treated equal to other citizens is a crime against humanity. However, I think they should just reverse prop 8 and leave the rest of the US alone for the time being, not because I believe it should not be passed, but the way it is being passed (at the supreme court) is 9 old judges sitting in a room), not in Congress, not by elected or popular vote (at least not directly). To be sure I would not mind any way this gets passed, I think this is a perfectly good way to pass it, but I think we should be weary of the backlash this could cause if it is done this way. The uncooperative reactionary tea party response if the Supreme Court did this would be to throw this squarely on the shoulders of the Administration at the point because this is literally what we are dealing with in the tea party and some of the more reactionary republicans. They will see this as the Federal Government as being the big bad tyranical socialists they are infact not, and if it passes in this fashion they might be even more motivated to stand against any kind of progress Democrats and Reasonable Republicans (ugh I feel so bad for Boehner) try to make no matter how good it is for the sake of the country or the people, and while pulling shit like like this is in every way opposite of what America stands for, they will do it anyway because they are that goddamn desperate.

Good god man, carriage returns. Use them. Love them.

[Liriena]

I'm not really shocked. O'Reilly is an immature, cynical and disingenuous fellow, but he is not entirely unreasonable or deluded.

And, of course, he is 100% correct in his assessment.

[Desperate Measures]

The Right supports same-sex marriage. The Right has always supported same-sex marriage.

[Liriena]

The Right supports same-sex marriage. The Right has always supported same-sex marriage.

Let's be honest, it would have made a lot of sense if they had supported it from the start.
After decades of bitching and moaning about gay promiscuity and the health risks associated, you would have thought sex-frightened conservatives would jump with glee at the idea of marriage for same-sex couples.

[Fireye]

DOMA could withstand a SC challenge though, with the current makeup of the court.

Rather unlikely. There are five justices who would most likely overturn it based on the reasons Trotskylvania gave, and the federalist argument against it could conceivably win over Roberts. Scalia and Thomas, of course, would never vote to overturn. I don't know enough about Alito to even guess as to how he'd rule.

I really hope that it gets overturned.

Not because of the gay marriage thing, I really don't care about that either way, but because it's an attempt to legislate one groups morality.

Just like "Gun Control" is an attempt to legislate a different group's morality.