Bill O'Reilly, of the cloth, of the order of defending Christmas from all who would ravage it, and of the school of thought which cherishes the Constitution of the United States of America, has a problem. He has a problem with queers, or the gay community for the more PC amongst us, having equal rights as declared by the Bill of Rights which complements the Constitution nicely. His problem is that a civil war is, or would brew over a national (in other words 'federal') declaration of marriage rights for fudge-packers. Or maybe it is because he thinks that it would lead to legalized polygamy.
Just what the fuck is his problem with ass-pirates having the right to marry granted to them by the federal government?
Well, he appeared on CBS's weekday program "This Morning" on the 18th of July, year of our lawd, 2013. Here, on this bastion of interesting and integral content, he quipped:
You may be laughing right now, or at the very least giggling. Or maybe you're fuming at such a retarded display? Who knows. Back on topic, though, O'Reilly evidently belongs to a school of thought where faggots (piles of sticks, or homos? It's up to you) having the right to marry somehow, in some logical order one could possibly assume, leads to polygamy. Polygamy is the act of marrying more than one person. As if that's not bad enough, in the past O'Reilly has, whether jokingly or not, compared legalized gay marriage to marrying turtles (and hence other animals).
It's a slippery-slope argument, or as I prefer a "jumping over a gap" argument, because how in the hell do you, maintaining a straight face in the process, connect legalizing cock jockey marriage to orgy enthusiasts getting married?
O'Reilly sometimes appears to be a voice of reason in this subject. Indeed, he got some flack last month for criticizing anti-pansy pundits invoking the buy-bull and other religious nonsense in their arguments against rear admiral marriage. Yet when he later says something like this, it starts to make you wonder again. It makes you question his integrity, and in some cases, his sanity, when he seems to flip back and forth on this issue that is truthfully quite simple.
But let's bring up the Declaration of Indepedence, which states the following:
When it says "all men are created equal", could you rightly argue that the
DoI declares anything which would suggest that butt bandits don't have the same rights as other 'men'? The passage is very broad sweeping, in a rare instance of positivity amongst such things, and surely you couldn't argue that the constitution and all its documents deny fruits the right to marry one another. Let alone could you connect, in ways that make no sense to someone of my mindset, legalization of turd burglar marriage leading into "plural marriage", as O'Reilly would put it.
If you claim to believe and stand by the constitution, which broadly grants "all men" certain unalienable rights, but you argue that rump rangers should not be granted the right to marry and bump uglies, then you are a hypocrite. If you are "in it for the folks", as you say sometimes on your show, but you don't believe that some private acts, including male on male action, are good for 'Murika, then you're a bigot.
Wait a second; didn't we all already know this shit?
,