Bill O'Reilly's theory on gay marriage: Next we'll be marrying turtles!
By David Neiwert Tuesday May 12, 2009 10:30am
Ewwwwwwwww. Does anyone really want to listen to Bill O'Reilly's speculations on sex acts?
When he opened up his segment on The O'Reilly Factor last night talking about the future possibilities for marriage created by the innovation of gay marriage, the first thing he mentioned was threesomes -- while chatting with two toothsome members of The Factor Harem:
O'Reilly: All right, Hoover. I did not know this, but I had said from the jump if you OK gay marriage, then you have to do plural marriage, which is now -- has a name, triads. Three people getting married. There is a group in Maui, Hawaii, called the Lessin's adversary group -- advocacy group, and it's World Polygamy [sic: Polyamory] Association. They're associated with that. And they want to be married.
So, No. 1, I'm an oracle. And No. 2, how you can deny them under equal protection under the law?
Hoover: You can't deny them under equal protection of the law.
O'Reilly: OK, so you say that they have to marry, as well.
Hoover: No, no. Here's what I think. First of all, I think it is extremely disingenuous for you to suggest that, if you allow gay people to get married, they're going to have to allow -- that polygamy is then going to run --
O'Reilly: You just said you have to.
Hoover: -- rampant across the United States. Here's --
O'Reilly: You just -- wait, wait. You just said you have to allow them.
Hoover: Before the camera went on you said to me two things: due process.
O'Reilly: Right.
Hoover: You know what due process is? Due process is when we have laws, we then enforce them. We don't even -- we barely in five states have laws that gay people can be married. We have states -- laws in zero states that polygamy can happen.
O'Reilly: If I walk in to the Massachusetts state house and say, "Hey, Governor Deval Patrick, you've got to marry me and Lenny." All right? Because --
Hoover: I would love to see that, by the way.
O'Reilly: Not only Lenny, but Squiggy too. All right? Or I walk in with the O'Brien twins from South Boston and say, "Hey, you've got to marry me, because you're allowing gays to get married, and I'm in the Lessin's group, the World Polygamy Association."
All this fantasizing made us immediately want to go take a shower with a falafel or something.
But even worse, once we realized that he was describing his own threesome fantasies when it came to sex acts made possible by gay marriage, it really got disgusting when he went even further down that road:
HOOVER: I don't buy into the slippery slope argument at all.
O'Reilly: You'd let everybody do whatever they want?
HOOVER: That's the slippery slope argument. That's if you allow one thing to happen, then another thing, and another thing.
O'Reilly: Hoover, you would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can.
HOOVER: Due process. I want to abide by the law. If the law says I can marry a turtle, I'll marry a turtle. Last time I checked, we're a Judeo-Christian culture that doesn't allow me to marry turtles.
Really, Bill, if you want to have sex with a turtle or, as you've previously suggested, a goat or a duck or a dolphin, we suggest joining Rush Limbaugh for one of his Dominican jaunts or something and leave the rest of us out of the loop, OK? Please don't make us get out the damned brain bleach again.
Media Matters has more.
Login or Register to post comments.
*gets down on one knee*
i never thought that a uion between me and my terrapin love would ever be recognozed by the state...
It was only a matter of time Samson...everyone saw how you two exchanged knowing glances.
i thought you were going to mention my hand under her shell...
*phew*
but since ya brought it up....
to the term..."snapping turtle".
Niiiice!
.
That's a box turtle to you.
"snapping box turtle"...the perfect mate!
You can lay your beer on her shell!!
Ok....someone HAD to to do it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SzCPTPkZb8&fe...
bwahahaha, jesus....
oh... wait... Gertrude? with phil?!?!? NOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!
and he didn't erase his History files. Everything is there but the goat.
what Billoids pw is..
word while dressed as a cheerleader?
Actually I have no idea...I haven't seen that video.
Spastic wheels, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt_YcQlYxyY
wow...she's lame.
that was so hurtful to warrant this link? To prevent the taking of mine eyes, I will have to go lay down now.
lNm was asking for it.
I'm dressed.
tortoise shell teddy, I hope.
Rudy.
Razor wire thong, thigh high Kiss boots...
and a sweat stained wife beater.
Drives the women folk wild...WILD I TELLS YA!
snappers.
thong...it's chain mail.
What happened to snakes and goats? Don't they get any love from BillO?
O'Reilly just adds such beauty, inspiration, and enlightenment to my everyday experience how could I ever possibly live and thrive without O'Reilly.
marrying a turtle would be a stepup for billo's
wife since she married a turd at this point.
It's like that pig Dobbs labeling himself "Mr. Independent". O'Reilly's simply an old bigot with tire ass, rejected ideas.
2+2 together and come up with 5.
A "culture warrior" is a nicer way of saying "bigot." For what it is worth...
Bill O'Reilly said something nonsensical and unhinged.
I wanna see Orally try to mate with a snapping turtle.
That would be sweet sweet justice.
Not Yertel and Mack.
it's the tortoise and the hare...
of the racers was all about?
Then the lion, the witch and the wardrobe. Hot, steamy wardrobe action!
Bell, book, and candle.
Bed bath and beyond?
What?
Are we still talkin about the turtles doin the nasty?
Everyone has their own fetish.
Any idea how difficult is to find a 3 legged cross-dressing turtle with a slight wall eye and a speech impediment on short notice?
You have described Rudy G., you know.
Nicely done!!
skip the wedding.
The sword and the sorcerer.
How about Bed Knobs and Broomsticks?
(Had to really dig for that classic - lol)
My apologies to their victims.
Then let's try "The Wind and Willows"?
would no longer have to work outside the home.
Never seen MISTER Spider around did we?
You never saw her on food stamps either.
turnin tricks to aaaaaall the farm boys.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/zz-top/34022/legs.j...
your going to have to enter rehab at some point.
He is relying on his child to keep him sane. Fortunately the kid is not a teenager yet.
when the teenage rebel years arrive.
No other self-respecting creature would have billo he might have a shot with a turtle but somehow I doubt it turtles are way to proud
Because, as we all know... turtles are EXACTLY THE SAME as a consenting adult.
"Next we'll be marrying turtles!"
Or loofahs (or was that falafels?). . .
Maybe this is what Bill-O meant when he said, "Hey babe, put down that pipe and get MY pipe UP!" :)
between 2 and 3... isn't O'Reilly married to a "Ream-Master 5000"?
creatures. It featured electronic stimulation of either a sponge or a sea anemone. I walked away more convinced of the need to preserve the sanctity of marriage.
officially, absolutely, positively DISGUSTED AND SICK TO DEATH OF THIS SLEAZEBALL!!!! His pre-occupation with sex proves he is a pervert. Why is it always the Repugs that come up with these perverted sexual unions? Remember Lee Horsely (aptly named), a Southern representative (can't remember what state, but does it matter?) who boasted about his days as a horny farmboy and sheep were scattering?!!! EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWW!
Remember, Mr. O'Reilly is a Catholic and we all know that Catholics are sexually repressed (stop laughing now) because it is beaten into them that sex is a sin. You aren't even supposed to enjoy it. Its dirty.
Good thing they are so repressed, otherwise my youthful years would have been awful boring as a young gay male!
I think that's spelled "Ewe"
if you allow them to.
My best guess at this point is just plow ahead, don't look back, and leave them in the dust.
is making an honest Billy out of him?
geez, what part of this don't they understand. if two people wish to get married and it is going to have zero effect on your own lifestyle, then why butt in and say no. don't these assholes such as o'reilley know that by denying someone the right to marriage, then that is tantamount to saying they are playing the role of God. They don't speak for me. no, i'm not gay but i honestly do not believe there was any choice in opting for a gay lifestyle. that is just something that the great giftee giver gave to them at birth. don't Gays have enough of a burden in their lives to contend with without right wing holier than thou pundits making their lives miserable. We absolutely need to help them achieve this goal in any way possible.
If 50 people want to get married let them. Who cares. If poligamists want to marry, let them. Now, having said that, if some 50 year old man wants to marry a 14 year old girl, then we have a legal issue. Minors can't get married. Pretty simple actualy. If 500 people want to get married to each other, that's their problem. Divorce lawyers would look at that as an absolute gold mine!
in every sense of the word
No lawyer could handle that divorce. It would take Jim Jones and a vat of Kool Aid.
Funny. Most of the money for the anti gay marriages in California came from Mormons.
to do it.
there are quite a few states that allow marriage of minors with parental consent.
NC...at least I think it used ta was.
as long as one or more of the parties are related to withing the second degree of consanguinity.
state by state
http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmarriage/a/t...
There are only 2 states where someone under 17 cannot be married Nebraska and Oregon, I think.
Typical hateful child hating Pugs O'Reilly would defend.
Fake titties - hate children.
Everyone knows a breast fed baby is a happy grownup. he,he, except Rush, Insannity and O'Dildoe.
of a critter who has yet to be identified.
of a critter who REFUSES to be identified.
Guess I'll have to reevaluate. No wonder Dad like him.
I'm more worried that if we let ONE blowhard bigot get away with this whole loofah/falafel perversity, next thing you know, it'll be toe-tapping senators in airport bathrooms, or diaper-wearing romps with prostitutes, or soliciting congressional pages ...
... oh, wait. Never mind.
in the Gallapagos.
The O'Reilly show is the old people's porn show. You can just imagine old grandpa wingnut getting off on the O'Mpousedick and his toothsome members of The Factor Harem.
I worked for more than thirty years in various mental hospitals and have heard a LOT of crazy blather in my time, but all this nonsense that the Republicans are spouting lately is among some of the downright craziest stuff I've ever heard. Period.
When your daily shower meditation is 25 girls, one cup.
seriously think that fantasizing about women is a bad thing? The one cup part is not my cup of tea(pun intended), but why do you think its his? And even if it is whats wrong with it? If your for gays you might as well be for other sexual activities between consenting adults.
Wouldn't it be amusing if Boss Limpballs, Darth Cheney and Billo were all stranded on a desert island together with a dozen women that found the three of them repulsive, hideous, gross, juvenile and pitiful. I could go on and on as to what those women would think of them....
Turtles and goats have rights, too. I'm doing a mind mend with a duck right now who is grossed out from being raped by FOX Noise anchormen and will be a guest on Oprah soon....
and then run for Gubbnah of Alabama.
Or a scholarship to an all Duck School?
No, but I'll bet any feminist worth her sweat would kick a chauvenist PIG like O'Reilly in his oysters.
clogged.
of turtles in rural Idaho.
Bill to get it over and come out of the closet.
around unhitched. He could get hurt.
The man is a fuckwit.
*
Billo reminds me of that priest in Harold & Maude:
"I would be remiss in my duty if I did not tell you that the idea of intercourse - the act of your firm, young body... comingling with... withered flesh... sagging breasts... and flabby buttocks... makes me want to vomit."
Me too. Bill undoubtedly wears tighty white-ies with turtle marks.
... these Freudian slips are a window to O'really's disturbed psyche. The dude needs some help.
The sad part is that in XXI century America we're still having a debate regarding the merits of torture and having people in public forums putting homosexual men and women at the level of terrapins. "Compassionate" bunch these conservatives are, eh?
Billo is an entertainer, like Limberger, and not to be taken seriously. There are, and will always be, those with a single cell brain who take them seriously.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the above exchange was an attempt to get a menage a trois (triad in Billspeak) going. Or maybe a fourway involving a turtle. A snapper for Billo's willy.
He would never use the french vernacular. Call it a threesome.
Bill, his ego and his checkbook.
Ironic in that in Billo's world marriage and sex are probably mutually exclusive.
..good luck finding someone, anyone to actually marry you to a turtle. Good luck getting a license and everything else. The "marryin' a turtle" argument is really stupid. Go live with the turtle, who would care? But marry, as in a church or a legal civil union, good luck with that.
..Newt, hmm!
... Newt will divorce him the moment he's in the hospital dying.
billo providing a morsel of HATE for those (evangelicals) pre-occupied with same sex marriage and abortion. this is part of the identity crisis for the party of HATE. they o'really don't stand for freedom and individuality UNless it's on their terms. you'll never enlarge the "tent' that way bill.
If turtles can legally sign a marriage contract, then I don't see the problem.
A marriage is a legal contract. Currently only those who've reached the "age of majority" can legally enter into such a contract. While it's a good bet that some turtles will, in fact, be over 18, they aren't legally recognized as being able to sign a contract that is recognized by law.
Now, if more than 2 want to form a relationship. Go for it. It's legally, uh, legal for more than 2 people to enter into a contract.
And, Bill, perhaps you can explain why two consenting adults should not be allowed to sign a legal contract because of their sex. Can you do that? Didn't think so.
is a legal contract with govt benefits, there is nothing stopping two (or more) gays from entering into a legal contract, they just don't get the govt benefits from it. I actually do know someone that is engaged in a polygamous relationship and has had legal contracts with his two wifes, he actually divorces one and marries the other once a year I think.
since I've perused the US constitution but I don't recall turtles being mentioned in relation to "equal protection". I find the slippery slope argument interesting especially in the light of a book I'm currently reading by some guy named Neiwert about Eliminationism. (thanks to Ms Joanne for providing it.) It is quite one thing to use the slippery slope argument for say, polygamy, which is quite extensively practiced around the world and inter species marriage which appears to me to be an attempt to group gays and lesbians with people who practice bestiality. This has historically been a very popular technique with eliminationists to dehumanize despised groups.
to put that ad up with the marriagable duck flashing his winsome neck
at us to prove Bill O's point.
I wonder how the turtle/donkey/sheep/[insert sexually exciting animal here] is going to say "I do"?
How can you marry some[thing] that has no way of agreeing to the union? I guess only Republicans think that everybody has to do what they say or want.
I would certainly prefer to marry a Turtle than Bill O'Reilly.
you would have more intelligent conversations if you married the turtle.
the polygamy argument strikes me as being a valid one.
Other than tax ramifications and the like, there is real no moral objection to this, certainly nothing from the bible.
From an equal protection standpoint, if no one is allowed a polygamous union we're cool.
It's an argument but I'm not sure how valid it is. If a man is crazy enough to marry more than one woman (or vice versa) why not?
I think it's far better than the charade that's going on in UT and AZ at the moment - where the man just marries one woman but the rest of his harem are "single mothers" suckling off the state for their upkeep. Let 'em be married legally and let Daddy pay for the whole clan instead of sponging off taxpayers. If it doesn't work out, he's got alimony/child support to all of them.
Honestly, I don't see a downside to allowing polygamy - not counting the poor sap who would actually try it.
You could make a valid argument in support of polygamy. I did not mean to imply that the possibility of polygamy was a valid argument for banning gay marriage.
I always knew that Gamara was promoting a lifestyle.
to the Gamara agenda.
...is there a factory someplace that produces O'Reilly's endless parade of blonde, blown-dry talking points babes?
Seriously...like, every frickin' night??? WTF is up with that?
I mean, is this some sort of angry middle-aged white guy demographic-tickling tactic?
Same sex marriage is not going to lead people to ask to marry their turtle. MARRIAGE period is what does that. Just like MARRIAGE has led same sex couples to ask for it. If we simply did away with MARRIAGE we wouldn't have to worry about, same sex marriage, polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, and the ever popular but rarely spoken of, human-turtle marriage. If we could just get rid of marriage...the slippery slope would be eliminated once and for all. And we'd all live happily ever after.
can expect to get our rib back?
O'Reilly and his triad: two snapping turtles. Go on O'Reilly, offer them hotties a teabag. *snap snap snap*
it seems that billo really wants to
mate with a banana slug.......problem
the slug is not sure which end of billo's
is the butt.........
or bestiality (ala O'Reilly/Santoram). The reason gays MUST be allowed to legally marry is due to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. You cannot make a law that applies to only one segment of the population. Therefore if two straight people are allowed to marry, then two gay people MUST also be allowed to be legally married. The law would say that TWO people are allowed to be legally married. Therefore it would apply to everyone, but not to more than two people or to animals.
Also, this would just apply to being LEGALLY married. It WOULD NOT guarantee that you could get married at any church of your choosing, so this has no religious impact whatsoever. These are all false arguments against allowing gay marriage. Gay marriage IN NO WAY has anything to do with destroying heterosexual marriage. People who want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" should be fighting to make DIVORCE illegal! Although personally, I would not want that.
does lead to legalized polygamy, if you can allow 2 men or 2 women to marry how can you stop 2 men and 1 woman or 2 women and 1 man or whatever combination you can come up with. Bestiality you can argue that the animals cannot consent.
And gays can be legally married, its just not a legally recognized marriage, there is nothing in the law that states two men (or women) cannot have a ceremony and declare themselves married, they just do not get the legal benefits of doing so. I know of a few couples that have done that.
Also gays can get married the same as straight people can, they just have to do it to the person of the opposite sex. They have the same benefits and restrictions everyone has, so how is that unequal under the law. Yes you can argue that they can't marry the person they love. But they still can get married and quite a few straight marriages are not for love either.
Good lord, are you ever fucking stupid.
that one water fountain marked "blacks only" and one marked "whites only" is not unequal under the law, as members of both groups have access to the same water?
How f&*#king stoopid can one person be???? Where have you been, sunshine, for the past 40 years? Didn't you learn all about the unconstitutionality of the "separate but equal" laws of the early 20th Century, and their being struck down during the Civil Rights acts of the 60s?
You're not the one being asked to settle for a marriage where there's no love or even attraction and chemistry. You at least have that option as a straight man.
Call me a sappy sentimentalist, but I want to love the person I marry, as well as have sexual chemistry and passion. You seem to
You seem to have a low opinion of marriage. Do you really want marriages to be reduced to emotionless business contracts? (I realize that was what it was like back in the day in the Western world, but that world has passed away)
at once
Coyote do you have anything to rebut what I posted? Or just insults?
Navy Vet, How is all people having the ability to get married to a person of the opposite sex the same as separate water fountains? Gays and straights can both drink from the same fountain at the moment. Perhaps not how they would like to drink but they both have equal access to the same fountain. To use a racist stereotype it would be along the lines of whites and blacks having access to the same fountain but blacks want it to provide orange pop for them.
Anna I'm a sentimentalist like yourself I married the one I love.But homosexuals have the same ability to settle for a loveless marriage as myself as a straight male does.
And they also have the ability to settle into a loving caring marriage. Just one that does not contain the government benefits of one between two people of the opposite sex. In another comment section I stated I wouldn't mind if marriage was taken out of government. And that still holds true, marriage should be a strictly civil matter.
And I don't have a low opinion of marriage. And actually being reduced to a business deal is how it was for the majority of the world up until semi-recent times, and still is for a decent chunk of it, including some sects in America and the Far East and Middle East, or haven't you heard about the recent lawsuits filed on behalf of the 9 yr old girl who was married off to a 40 year old man in the middle east?
The point, that is. You stated that
No, they don't have the same benefits, because the rights of survivorship and other aspects of the marriage benefit are not allocated to the person whom they WISH them to be given to, i.e. the one they love. Instead, under your system, all those rights belong to the unloved "third party" whom they were encouraged to marry, just so everything would be equal. If the gay individual dies, the estate passes to the spouse, who is not the one the deceased intended to have it pass to.
Can't you see this? The whole gay-marriage issue comes down to a civil rights one, the unequal treatment of a select group of people. The religious idiots used the same arguments to oppose interracial marriages, and history has proven them wrong. They're wrong now, just like before.
"No, they don't have the same benefits, because the rights of survivorship and other aspects of the marriage benefit are not allocated to the person whom they WISH them to be given to, i.e. the one they love."
Never heard of a will I take it?
You ever hear of a contested will using "Elective Share" as a basis of disputing something like you are proposing by leaving the 'spouse' out of the will.
"An elective share is a term used in American law relating to inheritance, which describes a proportion of an estate which the surviving spouse of the deceased may claim in place of what they were left in the decedent's will. It may also be called a widow's share, statutory share or forced share.
The elective share is the modern version of the English common law concepts of dower and curtesy, both of which reserved certain portions of a decedent's estate which were reserved for the surviving spouse, in order to prevent them from falling into poverty and becoming a burden on the community."
NeilAndBob, anything on that? Everything isn't as black and white as you would like it. Marriage has many benefits that just don't exist in any other 'contract'.
pre-nup. Also they don't have to get married, the same as hetro people don't have to. And yes marriage does have benefits that aren't available in other contracts. I just stated if they want those benefits they can get them. The same as anyone else. How is that discriminatory?
Coyote do you have anything to rebut what I posted? Or just insults?
You'll never know, because you don't deserve anything but insults, you hateful numb-nutted hick.
nothing but insults, should of figured if you had any intelligence you would of posted something that requires more than a IQ of 70.
Here's another insult for you, inbred hillbilly-boy, but a constructive one this time: If you're going to riff on someone else's IQ, you'll be taken a mite more seriously if you realize, and put into practice henceforth, that where you typed "should of" you "should of" used "should have".
I'm here to help, shitkicker.
That was better Wily. But you see I did not make a mistake, I was simply trying to use the vernacular to which you are accustomed.
And if you are here to help. You could start by pointing out what you view as fallacies in my comments. With logical arguments rather than simple insults.
turtles? well at least that would be a step up from humans! lol!
Wonder how O'Liellys gay partner liked being called a swamp turtle.
I LIKE TURTLES!!!!
The legendary Billo cut up.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B-K4NGo2HE
This now needs to be redone.
why are ppl so afraid of gay marriage? what exactly is it?
Courtesy of Media Matters: "If kids of gay parents were equally healthy, why wouldn't eating cupcakes cause pregnancy?" - Billo
the point. If gay marriage is allowed in all states, should marriage to multiple people be allowed? This is a legitimate question which should be answered honestly and thoughtfully. Additionally if you are for or against it, explain why.
the concept of polygamy should be answered honestly and thoughtfully. One of the many benefits of a legal marriage is the establishment of a default proxy: if I am unable to speak for myself, I have a single designated individual to do so.
True this is similar to the legal rights afforded via Power of Attorney (but only requires me and my wife to sign the marriage license rather than employing a lawyer). In the case of a polygamous relationship, the legal right to speak on my behalf (again...when I am not able to do so myself) falls into a legally gray area: is my first wife the preferred proxy, or does subsequent "marriages" supercede in priority?
Similar quandries occur with all of the other rights inherent with a marriage license (rights of survivorship, inheritance rights, etc.).
The strength of the marriage concept is that society will accept my designated partner is speaking on my behalf without extraneous legal involvement. There are only two possibilities: I speak for myself OR my wife speaks for me.
A polygamous "marriage" does not supply such clearly defined legal avenues should unforeseen issues arise. If I am on life-support, which of my multiple partners can decide to pull the plug? What happens if they don't all agree? Rather than streamlining the legal process for an individual to protect his/her legal rights, a polygamous marriage just creates a legal snafu...
Should it be illegal for consenting adults to live in a polyamorous relationship....NO. But because of the legal ambiguities that it would create, polygamous "marriages" should not be legally recognized.
do you expect a turtle to give consent, O'Reilly? Geeeeez.....
I met a really cute turtle today. I think he may be the one.
.
... And Bill-doh O'Liely wants to marry his loofah.
.
Login or Register to post comments.