Mexican Congresswoman Rejects Marriage Equality Because Gays Don’t Face Each Other During Sex

Ana María Jiménez Ortiz
Ana María Jiménez Ortiz, a member of Mexico's PAN party, says that gays should not be allowed to marry because,

"A marriage should only be considered amongst people that can look at each other in the eye while having sexual intercourse. Something that does not happen in homosexual couples."

Ortiz continued with her flawed assumptions by citing the condemned Regnerus study as justification and then resorted to the classic fallbacks of claiming she made her arguments in a respectful manner and the overused “I’m sorry that my participation was taken out of context."

The criticism Ortiz received online was enough to force her to make her Twitter account private.


  1. Neil Cameron says

    All this proves is that either:
    1) they are not spying on the bedroom shenanigans of gay people, or
    2) they are, but she hasn’t reviewed the data yet, or
    3) This woman doesnt know how to switch off safe search.

  2. Gordon says

    I have had several sessions of face to face sex. It was a pleasure to wipe the sweat off of my partners face as he labored. She is a bigot idiot. I hope she is not re-elected.

  3. Abn says

    Haha, she really lacks imagination. We should start sending her gay porn (and maybe some lesbian if you find any) to educate her. Or maybe that’s a crime, I don’t know what the laws in Mexico are regarding that. All I know is that the bigots keep on killing their cause with stupidity.

  4. Brian1 says


    Please don’t repeat your stupid theory, I get that. But what I don’t get is how you’re finding support for it. First you must disregard every single survey on the subject that shows women much more accepting of gay rights than men. Instead I guess you decide you’re just going to count individual anti gay women around the world based on towleroad stories. Every single time one pops up, you do too with your silliness. But how do you account for the many more men saying and doing anti gay things in articles on this site? Or pro gay women? Why is this always greeted with silence from you?

  5. mike/ says

    these people just can’t get sex off their minds or out of their heads! btw, she is a member of PAN, the political party in Mexico close to ‘teabagging’ & with the catholic church behind it.

    guess the ‘missionary position’ is still the method of choice….

  6. dean says

    Oh looky…Brian Mark Jason Rick…

    Right on cue, trotting out his half-wit ‘thesis’ trying to push his meme into existence, like a still born from a vacuum packed V-Jay.

    Dude. You are wrong. You have no proof. You have no statistics, you don’t evehabe Precident Reserch to back ANY of your absurdity…which is KEY to be taken seriously by anyone here. Meaning…

    Abandon your ship of fools immediately.

    Can’t? Teathered to your own mast? Well let me hoist you on to your own Petard.

  7. Rick says


    Just another woman threatened by the increasing acceptability of men having sex with other men……of which you will see more and more examples as time goes on.

  8. Rick says


    As I explained the other day, we are in the midst of a process of change. The historical starting point was one where male homosexuality was totally taboo and to be suspected of it, even, was to become a total social outcast. Therefore, all men avoided any such suspicions like the plague, one manifestation of which was that they behaved with hostility towards anyone else who gave any indication of homosexual attraction.

    Women, not subject to these suspicions, were free to befriend gay men if they wanted to….and some of them, feeling no threat from gay men as long as straight men could be counted on to keep them totally socially isolated and of low status……and also finding them useful in certain ways (as hair stylists, florists, interior decorators, and the like)…..some of them actually did befriend gay men…..which is what led to the traditional notion (and reality) that gay men developed, that women were our friends and men were our enemies.

    This, in turn, led many gay men to embrace feminism and to believe that the way to liberation was to destroy masculinity.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. As the taboo against male homosexuality began to dissipate, more and more men began to become less homophobic….seeing, among other things, a chance for themselves to be free of a male culture that prevented them from having normal friendships with other men, because male intimacy was so frowned upon. The “bromance” was born. Which is becoming very threatening to women, because it is making men less dependent on them and may ultimately make them completely independent of them.

    The reason you are having trouble seeing this is because a) you don’t want to, because it threatens the traditional gay male culture and its assumptions, too, and/or b) because, as I said, we are in the midst of a PROCESS and vestiges of the old paradigm still remain.

    I don’t think they will 20-30 years from now, though….and you are seeing a shift, clearly…..the result of which will be a totally new paradigm… which the animosity of men has been replaced by acceptance and even embrace of male homosexuality, while the traditional lack of animosity among women has been replaced by hostility and anger.

  9. Rowan says

    Brian1, chill with the women worship. Men are just more vocal and aggressive then women, hence why they do more homophobic crimes. Women just do it behind your back… you know NOTHING of the fairer sex? Really?

  10. Rowan says

    Paul R, but he is right in lot of what he says but is also wrong because of his extreme agenda.

    We need balance on this site instead of obnoxious diva worshipers who blindly obsess about any mean bitchy diva.

    It’s funny because agree or disagree with Rick, he writes the most articulate posts on this site.

    Also Paul, not sure if you’re into tumblr ot instagram but take a minute there and see what comments ‘your female fag hags’ say under posts of any guy that is supposed to be gay, or is gay from Matt Bomer to Frank Ocean. Frigging rude.

  11. says

    To see how homophobic women truly are, one need only look at the results of every poll on attitudes and voting, then check out the women of the U.S. Supreme Court. Oh, wait …

    Hint: the real problem isn’t women, it’s political and religious affiliation. In the U.S. it’s Republicans, in Mexico it’s the PAN party. Male/female, beside the point.

  12. Mary says

    I hate to say this since I used to be anti-gay not very long ago, but I’m starting to find the anti-gay side of the political aisle genuinely funny. But not in a good way. It pains me to think that this is how I once appeared to others.

  13. Rick says

    When are you limp-wristed effeminate liberals going to realize that masculine men like myself who comment anonymously on internet forums are the best example of gay men?

    I am not openly gay and I never will be and I’ve never actually had sexual relations with another man, and it’s all because your culture of effeminacy has turned you “Out and Proud” gays into woman-worshipping divas who don’t earn respect and are just stereotypes.

    When my mother and father caught me sniffing his skidmarked underwear when I was a teen my mother, like most man-hating women, scolded me. My father, who understood what being a masculine man was all about, chose instead to direct his flatulence directly into my face whenever we were alone, because that’s how masculine non-effeminate men like myself who are strong and macho behave together.

    But what you all need to remember most is that I’m not just an internet troll, I’m also an internet coward, and I say what I say because I have nothing of worth to offer anyone.

    And I’ll never forget that the reason I’m denied the freedom to inhale my deceased father’s sick-spleen gas is because you liberal effeminates are effeminate and also liberal.

    Also, it’s Lady Gaga’s fault. Because twinks like her.

  14. Rick says

    “To see how homophobic women truly are, one need only look at the results of every poll on attitudes and voting, then check out the women of the U.S. Supreme Court. Oh, wait … ”

    The fly in the ointment of that argument, Ernie, is that those polls and those Supreme Court decisions involve attitudes towards lesbianism, as well…..and it is a well-established fact that many feminists are at least sympathetic towards lesbianism as a political statement, even if they are not attracted to other women sexually, themselves.

    Because the laws re: marriage or military service or any other area/institution prohibit(ed) same-sex relationships in general, regardless of gender, it is not really possible to get a complete view of how women or men feel and how their attitudes are evolving towards MALE homosexuality, specifically, and towards MALE intimacy, specifically, as opposed to generalized views about “same-sex marriage” or “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” that are not gender-specific…..

  15. says

    @Rick, more like the fly in the ointment of your life due to whatever piece of work your mother must have been to make you fear and loathe women so much … But, anyway, even if your imaginings were true (I’ll try hard to pretend they are), so what? If some women support gay rights as a feminist and/or lesbian cause by voting the right way, fine with me. It’s the rights I want (and now have) not the thumbs-up approval. I couldn’t care less about their views on male intimacy, makes no difference to my life.

    (For the record, the women I know find male intimacy hot.)

  16. hornlongjohn says

    Uhhhh, please someone send her a porno that will hopefully clear up her ignorance. All I can say is that her husband must be pretty bored if this is any indication of her sexual “prowess” in the bed room. He is probably off with some guy on his back as the guy gets into him.

Leave A Reply