What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
472 Comments
- inactive, on 05/12/2009, -18/+225There is something seriously wrong with people like O'Reilly (and Rick man-on-dog Santorum) who continually equate gay marriage with bestiality. Either they're menially ill for believing that crap or their just plain evil in the attempts to make the analogy. Although, I guess it could be both.
- dtr300, on 05/12/2009, -13/+157Since the right wing has a well-known habit of accusing others of whatever evil deeds they themselves are most guilty of.... does this mean that O'Reilly has secret turtle fantasies?!
- Hetman, on 05/12/2009, -7/+116If we give Gays driver licences whats next? Is my cat going to be eligible to drive around?
- RoroCo, on 05/12/2009, -5/+101I love how the slippery slope argument is abused. Why not use the same argument with gun control. If you allow hang guns, then you will need to allow rocket launchers. If you allow capital punishment, then you will need to allow vigilantism...
Seriously O'Rielly... Stop trying to argue your point by bringing up another irrelevant argument. - Hetman, on 05/12/2009, -10/+105That is the most absurd argument ever. Seriously they are really getting desperate now. If someone cannot tell the difference between a consenting adult, and an animal they really need some serious help and education.
- inactive, on 05/12/2009, -7/+81hey, bill - your wife chose to marry a bellowing elephant-seal, so what's your ***** point??
- inactive, on 05/12/2009, -6/+77He does realize that homosexuality is legal and ***** animals isn't, right? Maybe someone should let him know that there is a distinction between human beings and animals before he gets arrested. Though, I would honestly forget that people had a value greater than pond scum if I was in a Fox News studio all day, so I guess I understand where he is coming from.
- Diefree, on 05/12/2009, -16/+85Bill sexual predator, bigot, idiot O'Reilly is at it again.
- rabidbob, on 05/13/2009, -1/+63He clearly does not understand the definition of "consenting adults"; this being the case he's a classic candidate for being a serial killer or rapist.
See, we can use the same tactics as he does! - RagManX, on 05/12/2009, -6/+61Since when do we even allow goats, dolphins, or other animals to sign legal contracts? As long as marriage is viewed as a legal contract in the US, I'm going to have trouble seeing how this faux argument has any real weight.
- BBE1965, on 05/12/2009, -7/+60How about marriage to falafel? Will it lead us down that road? O'Reilly is a bigot capitalizing on the unthinking bigot market
- antwan17, on 05/13/2009, -2/+49@YuriSakazaki, in cases such as gay marriage where a minority of people are being discriminated against by the majority the courts step in as has been the case in most of the states that have legalized same sex marriage. This is one of the primary duties of the judiciary, to hold back the "tyranny of the majority".
@edud, nice try but the thing that all you people who argue that gay marriage is a slippery slope to things like marriages with animals or child marriages, there's one problem with your argument, well I should say demagoguery, which is that ALL marriages require the ability of all parties involved to provide willing and legal consent.
Animals can't provide legal consent, children can't provide it, your pathetic attempts to tie gay marriage to bestiality and pedophilia are transparent to anyone with a functioning mind. - inactive, on 05/12/2009, -12/+58O'Reilly is really weird and off the reservation on many issues and this is one of them.
- s14sh3r, on 05/13/2009, -1/+45@YuriSakazaki
That's precisely the reason we don't have a pure Democracy. It allows a majority to exert rule over a minority. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it right. - Memitim, on 05/13/2009, -1/+43I dunno, I think that they might have a point, although they're addressing a symptom and not the root problem. After all, heterosexual marriage led to homosexuals wanting to marry, which of course leads to the urge to marry turtles, goats, ducks, and whatnot. And then setting that example will cause an uproar with the vegetables, tortillas, breadsticks, and other supporting food items as they'll want to marry people as well.
Maybe it's time to ban marriage, because it obviously leads to no good. - dstrizzle69, on 05/12/2009, -7/+48What a jackass
- perrym, on 05/12/2009, -18/+56............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\ - Coven, on 05/12/2009, -2/+39I actually once argued with a guy on the subway who claimed that the 2nd Amendment would allow him to have a nuke in his garage if he wanted it.
- inactive, on 05/13/2009, -1/+38underage kids != consenting adults.
You = jackass - Mnementh2230, on 05/13/2009, -3/+37You're a moron. You're so moronic I have trouble figuring out how you breath without prompting, let alone turn on your computer. I'm blown away by your idiocy - it astounds me.
CONSENTING ADULTS are:
sentient beings (being general here, not ruling out alien life forms) of legal age, capable of signing contracts and making legal decisions about their own future.
CONSENTING ADULTS are *not*:
children (not of legal age)
animals (not sentient)
Why is this so difficult to understand? Do you need me to make a ***** pie chart? Or maybe a Venn Diagram? - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -7/+39well morally i don't see anything wrong with "consenting" polygamists getting married, but legally that doesn't fit into our tax code and a number of other laws. The problem with polygamists, the girls usually aren't very consenting at the age of 15.
- 0tis, on 05/13/2009, -4/+34Get off my planet. I never want to hear from you again.
- Lederhosed, on 05/12/2009, -8/+38This guy is simply a clown
- tgjerusalem, on 05/12/2009, -7/+35O'Reilly has been spending way too much time thinking about people having sex with animals. He might want to seek therapy for that.
- Zyphron, on 05/13/2009, -13/+41Have any of you actually watched this video? Despite the fact that I am normally unimpressed with O'Reilly, he was not really being that unreasonable. His main question was why Polygamy should not be acceptable if we are also excepting homosexuality, since polygamists are also all "consenting adults." The turtle comment was thrown in at the end to prove a point and show the logical flaws in his opponents argument...which is a valid debate tactic. You do it all the time when dealing with a complex topic, you use an extreme thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment) to test out the validity of an argument.
The problem here is that we are getting into the business of defining what marriage is. You see if marriage is a thing, and a thing that we did NOT make up, but that was created for us, then it can only be one thing. However, if Marriage is simply some word describing a bonding ritual which we have developed, then there is absolutely no reason why we cannot continue to change and modify that definition to include homosexuality, polygamy, or anything else that we want.
O'Reilly's point that you have to justify why 2 and not 3 is perfectly valid. The response on the video is that it is against the law, but it is against the law for homosexuals to marry in several states, and just as we have changed the law for them, we could also change the law for polygamists, or incestuous couples, or any other group which wants to be married. As long as we are in the business of defining what marriage is, I see no reason why we should allow certain groups (Heterosexual and homosexual couples) while denying other people. Doesnt the polygamist or EVEN the person who loves his Dog have equal rights? You scoff at it, but the people that want to marry their dog, or their sister, or their toaster, or their whole neighborhood are still people. Every argument applied to the debate in favor of homosexual marriage can be applied to them with the possible exception of the "consensual" argument for certain of the above categories.
So I go back to O'Reilly's original question: What is really the difference between marriage of two homosexual people, or two heterosexual people, or a man and 5 women, or a woman and 5 men, or a mother and a son, or a brother and a sister....They are all simply consenting adults with equal rights... - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -0/+28Toonces is pretty awesome
- fartbarker, on 05/12/2009, -6/+34life in the closet will make you say and do stupid things
- inactive, on 05/13/2009, -5/+32Every time O'Reilly brings up bestiality he forgets that he lives in a democratic society. Laws are made by our elected officials. Suggesting that anyone would ever vote for legalizing bestiality is asinine.
- ITdude472, on 05/12/2009, -0/+26Actually, the scary thing is beastiality is legal in more places than gay marriage, trying to figure out the logic on this one makes my brain hurt.
- seltaeb4, on 05/13/2009, -3/+27We already know he has fantasies about loofahs and falafels:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackri ... - Zong, on 05/12/2009, -8/+32If we allow gays to get married people will want to marry animals? Hummm from a show of hands how many people here have a open relationship with an animal other than human?? Is the animal of legal age? Is the animal willfully choosing to be with you? Does the animal have the ability to form a contract? Of those people how many want to get married and give me the reasons for it.
If their is 1 human being on this planet who wants to this please come out and tell the world. I mean if we are seriously going to degrade the gay marriage by saying what about animal marriage then I'm gonna ask the questions one would ask to seriously consider animal marriage.
Oh and lastly but no least, I seriously don't care who or what you want to marry. If you want to marry a piece of pie be my guest I don't care it's your life you do what you wish with it. Marriage and love is something that is a personal choice that cannot be forced by the government of a religion that is not your own.
Choice is freedom... - chaos7, on 05/12/2009, -13/+36bill o'reilly = buried
- Memitim, on 05/13/2009, -4/+26A thought experiment has to have validity within the context of the argument in order to have significance. Bestiality has nothing to do with people consensually entering into a formalized relationship with one another, which is the basis for the argument for homosexuality or polygamy regardless of how you tried to marginalize "consensual" as an exception in order to make your point. Relating bestiality to homosexuality or polygamy is a shock tactic and nothing more.
- mithrasinvictus, on 05/13/2009, -1/+23You just need to extend the slippery slope argument 1 tier to show how ridiculous it is.
It all started with interracial marriage, and then the gays wanted to get married and pretty soon the dolphins will be applying for a license.
Actually, regular marriage probably slippery sloped into interracial marriage so if we want to be really safe from potential cyborg unicorn polygamy it would be best to abolish marriage altogether. - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -2/+22What's your point? The age of consent is an arbitrarily chosen age where states recognize an individual as having the full rights of an individual along with the full cognitive capability of an adult. The age at which the law defines consent doesn't affect the definition of consent or the ability to give it. Your argument is weak sauce and isn't a logical argument.
You = still a jack ass
Me = Winner - ViscidGobs, on 05/13/2009, -2/+22Wow, you read a digg article. Do you do much else with that one braincell besides jump off cliffs with the rest of the herd? Clearly this topic is far beyond the scope of your intellect. Stick to irrelevancies of dinosaur marriages. Clearly sticking to the subject means nothing to you.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/12/2009, -6/+25I hope you told him that nuclear weapons were classified as ordinance, not arms, and as such are there are no guarantees of their ownership in the 2nd Amendment... nevermind that his garage would probably become a Superfund site if he actually held a nuke in there for any length of time.
- Coven, on 05/12/2009, -5/+24His statement was actually the end of the argument, at which I got up and moved to the next car forward out of concern for my own safety. If a guy is arguing that he has the right to own something like that, who knows what he is carrying on his person.
I was on the NYC subway after all. There's just some people you don't sit next to for extended periods of time. - mdfrake, on 05/13/2009, -1/+20Lukas - I'm not going to insult you. But I want to ask what your first two lines have to do with the body that is supposed to support your theory? Are you saying there is not such thing as a gay conservative? Are you saying that only liberals are pushing for same sex marriage? How do you come to the conclusion that liberals do not find any sex offensive? Does that mean that conservatives find all sex offensive?
I know I'm not going to reach you, but I am assuming that your theory is that gay sex is wrong, and that the only allowed sex should be between married couples, and therefore if gays were allowed to marry it would be acceptable. The only problem with that argument is that marriage is not just a religious institution. There are tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, and other common law legal considerations that go to married couples that are not afforded to same sex partners not allowed to marry. Also, the government has taken part in marriage by issuing licenses (taxes) and by the aforementioned rights of married couples. As long as the government takes part in the institution of marriage, under our constitution we can not discriminate between opposite sex couples and same sex couples.
To sum up, regardless of how you feel about gay sexual intercourse, as long as the government takes part in marriage, it can not discriminate against gay marriage or any marriage between two consenting adults. - SirBruce, on 05/13/2009, -4/+23I would vote for legalizing bestiality.
- po43292, on 05/13/2009, -6/+24I like turtles.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/13/2009, -1/+19Again, CONSENTING ADULTS. What is it about the ability to grant legal consent that you are failing to grasp?
- TheGroje, on 05/13/2009, -4/+21"... dogs and cats living together, Mass Hysteria!"
- Chrysalii, on 05/13/2009, -2/+19Slippery slopes are fun aren't they?
- bsmang, on 05/13/2009, -2/+19Why do right wingers all seem to want to ***** kids, dogs and goats? Sickos.
- Zippo, on 05/13/2009, -3/+19Pretty sure no one's marrying goats or dolphins in Canada.
What's that, Lassie? The slippery slope argument against gay marriage is total *****? Who'd have thought. - orlyfactor, on 05/13/2009, -2/+18He likes turtles.
- angryfilipino07, on 05/13/2009, -3/+19I don't condone polygamy, but seriously if 5 grown women wants to marry one guy assuming he has a way to provide for all of them the government should have no right to tell them other wise. Isn't that what Hugh Hefner is doing now?
- DankBuddz, on 05/13/2009, -0/+16Your right, your opinion doesn't matter when it infringes on other people's rights.
Nobody gives a ***** that you don't think gays shouldn't get married, we all understand that there are people out in the world that don't understand certain concepts (such as yourself). - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -0/+15Not quite. Its legal in the sense that some states or cities have no laws forbidding it. Washington State had this problem a few years back when a video surfaced of a guy getting mounted by a horse (he later died due to internal injuries). It was only then did they specifically outlaw sex with animals.
Just because they dont have laws forbidding bestiality, doesn't mean its condoned or endorsed by those local governments. -
Show 51 - 100 of 485 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is