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

[kaz]

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

How does gays being married affect your tax money?

Still not learning to read, are you big guy? Not what I said. Government needs money, they do so many good things. We can't waste marriage dollars on people who aren't propagating the species. Who's money do you want to sacrifice for the gays? The poor? The elderly? Why do you hate the poor and the elderly?

 

[Jarhead]

government should not be interfering with marriage in an effort to propagate the species. They should not be interfering with marriage at all NOR should they be concerned with propagating the species.

The whole premise doesn't fit.

 

[Redfish]

I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more

That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

A constitutional amendment can make anything it wants constitutional or unconstitutional.

thats true, so if you want gay marriage to be legal in the USA, pass a constitutional amendment, get 38 states to ratify it and it will be the law of the land.

But if you can't do that, then each state gets to decide based on the votes of citizens of that state.

 

[Redfish]

My point is wrong? What I have stated is factually correct, contrary to you absurd response.


JWK

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

It was marriage of one man and one woman of different races----------its not the same as two men or two women.

Damn, you libs are a thick headed bunch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

It was marriage of one man and one woman of different races----------its not the same as two men or two women.

Damn, you libs are a thick headed bunch.

So you deny you said this even though it's quoted above?

"Yeah, marriage is a power of the state."

If it's a power of the state then the state could limit it to same race marriage.

Are you taking back your claim that it's not a state power?

 

[Jarhead]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

It was marriage of one man and one woman of different races----------its not the same as two men or two women.

Damn, you libs are a thick headed bunch.

But marriage between 2 people of different races was deemed as "not normal" until late last century.

So the argument that gay marriage is "not normal" does not hold much water.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

A constitutional amendment can make anything it wants constitutional or unconstitutional.

thats true, so if you want gay marriage to be legal in the USA, pass a constitutional amendment, get 38 states to ratify it and it will be the law of the land.

But if you can't do that, then each state gets to decide based on the votes of citizens of that state.

States can't decide to have unconstitutional marriage laws. I just proved that with the interracial marriage example.

 

[rightwinger]

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

How does gays being married affect your tax money?

Still not learning to read, are you big guy? Not what I said. Government needs money, they do so many good things. We can't waste marriage dollars on people who aren't propagating the species. Who's money do you want to sacrifice for the gays? The poor? The elderly? Why do you hate the poor and the elderly?

What is a marriage dollar?

How do gays being married affect your bottom line?

 

[Redfish]

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

It was marriage of one man and one woman of different races----------its not the same as two men or two women.

Damn, you libs are a thick headed bunch.

So you deny you said this even though it's quoted above?

"Yeah, marriage is a power of the state."

If it's a power of the state then the state could limit it to same race marriage.

Are you taking back your claim that it's not a state power?

I never said it was not a state power. you have me confused with someone else

 

[kaz]

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

How does gays being married affect your tax money?

Still not learning to read, are you big guy? Not what I said. Government needs money, they do so many good things. We can't waste marriage dollars on people who aren't propagating the species. Who's money do you want to sacrifice for the gays? The poor? The elderly? Why do you hate the poor and the elderly?

What is a marriage dollar?

How do gays being married affect your bottom line?

Just answered that question, big guy. Maybe your teacher can help you read the post.

While you do that, why do you hate the poor and the elderly? Why do you want to take their money away? They earned that money by being US citizens, why do you want them to go hungry?

 

[BULLDOG]

So how do you explain the following quotes?

My quote was that they usually back it up. And they do. Plus they bring on guests quite often, including those from opposite sides. I often don't hear the MSM address some of those issues. That's what pisses libs off. They can't have total control over news dissemination.

Your complete quote was

"They usually back it up. That's what pisses you commies off. Go FOX!"

Quit lying. It's too easy to expose your ignorance.

wtf is wrong with you? You're exposing your 2 digit IQ.

Your posts are there for all to see.

 

[Redfish]

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

It was marriage of one man and one woman of different races----------its not the same as two men or two women.

Damn, you libs are a thick headed bunch.

But marriage between 2 people of different races was deemed as "not normal" until late last century.

So the argument that gay marriage is "not normal" does not hold much water.

Wrong, mixing of the races was considered wrong by many ignorant people. Trying to equate racially mixed marriage to gay marriage will never work for you. Its just not analogous no matter how many times you say it.

You cannot change human biology, as much as you wish you could.

 

[Redfish]

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

A constitutional amendment can make anything it wants constitutional or unconstitutional.

thats true, so if you want gay marriage to be legal in the USA, pass a constitutional amendment, get 38 states to ratify it and it will be the law of the land.

But if you can't do that, then each state gets to decide based on the votes of citizens of that state.

States can't decide to have unconstitutional marriage laws. I just proved that with the interracial marriage example.

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

A constitutional amendment can make anything it wants constitutional or unconstitutional.

thats true, so if you want gay marriage to be legal in the USA, pass a constitutional amendment, get 38 states to ratify it and it will be the law of the land.

But if you can't do that, then each state gets to decide based on the votes of citizens of that state.

States can't decide to have unconstitutional marriage laws. I just proved that with the interracial marriage example.

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

 

[Jarhead]

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

It was marriage of one man and one woman of different races----------its not the same as two men or two women.

Damn, you libs are a thick headed bunch.

But marriage between 2 people of different races was deemed as "not normal" until late last century.

So the argument that gay marriage is "not normal" does not hold much water.

Wrong, mixing of the races was considered wrong by many ignorant people. Trying to equate racially mixed marriage to gay marriage will never work for you. Its just not analogous no matter how many times you say it.

You cannot change human biology, as much as you wish you could.

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

 

[Jarhead]

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

A constitutional amendment can make anything it wants constitutional or unconstitutional.

thats true, so if you want gay marriage to be legal in the USA, pass a constitutional amendment, get 38 states to ratify it and it will be the law of the land.

But if you can't do that, then each state gets to decide based on the votes of citizens of that state.

States can't decide to have unconstitutional marriage laws. I just proved that with the interracial marriage example.

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

this is true.

 

[g5000]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

 

[Redfish]

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

A constitutional amendment can make anything it wants constitutional or unconstitutional.

thats true, so if you want gay marriage to be legal in the USA, pass a constitutional amendment, get 38 states to ratify it and it will be the law of the land.

But if you can't do that, then each state gets to decide based on the votes of citizens of that state.

States can't decide to have unconstitutional marriage laws. I just proved that with the interracial marriage example.

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

no, you are far from a genius. more like a fucking idiot. your opinions are as valuable as a sack of cat shit

 

[Redfish]

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

It was marriage of one man and one woman of different races----------its not the same as two men or two women.

Damn, you libs are a thick headed bunch.

But marriage between 2 people of different races was deemed as "not normal" until late last century.

So the argument that gay marriage is "not normal" does not hold much water.

Wrong, mixing of the races was considered wrong by many ignorant people. Trying to equate racially mixed marriage to gay marriage will never work for you. Its just not analogous no matter how many times you say it.

You cannot change human biology, as much as you wish you could.

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

 

[g5000]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

I got so tired of these erroneous and repetitive arguments, I actually made a topic to address them: Reasons To Be Anti-Gay By The Numbers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See #2.