Skip to comments.‘If Anyone Wants to Call Me a Bible-Thumper, Go Ahead’: Blaze Readers Respond to O’Reilly
Posted on 04/07/2013 11:04:49 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Bill OReillys charged gay marriage debate with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham drew a strong reaction from TheBlaze audience, particularly over OReillys contention that same-sex marriage opponents often thump the Bible to make their point.
ordfan: I AM an opponent of same-sex marriage. If anyone wants to call me a Bible thumper, go ahead. I DO NOT CARE. My Bible IS the basis for my ENTIRE argument against homosexuality period. Now DO NOT be mistaken, being against homosexuality and against homosexuals are two VERY different things. I am not against homosexuals just because of that. P.S. If two men or two women want to live together, thats their choice but find some other title to call it. Sorry, the term marriage has been taken and the definition was established as between one man and one woman a long long time before ANY ONE OF US ever walked this planet. Quit trying to change it or hijack it. Or maybe I should say give it back.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
And that includes us Bill of Rights thumpers like me too!
How about you Bill?
I am a Bible Thumper! Smartest and most healthy thing I ever learned to do. :) Waay better than being a gay marriage thumper... (which is called something I don’t want to repeat, because I take it easy on the swears). :)
In a nation of no-fault divorce, isn’t the institution of marriage already ruined? Getting divorced because “we grew apart” was the end of biblical marriage in the US.
Now, I’m against gay marriage, but where was all the religious outrage 30 years ago when divorce became easy in all states?
Polluted rather than ruined. Ruined implies something that cannot be returned to.
>>Ruined implies something that cannot be returned to.
Go talk to a woman about doing away with no-fault divorce. That’s a Pandora’s Box that cannot be closed again.
There was considerable outrage as I recall, as well as many predictions of social ruin. Turns out that the Bible thumpers making those predictions were quite prophetic....
I’m sick of the “Men can do no wrong. Divorce is ALWAYS the woman’s fault.” mentality around here.
>>Im sick of the Men can do no wrong. Divorce is ALWAYS the womans fault. mentality around here.
I didn’t say that. I implied that women have been the beneficiaries of no-fault more than men. If a divorce has fault, then it can be the man or woman who caused it.
I would not put 100 percent of the onus upon women, many of whom actually want a permanent marriage without divorce.
But have they?
My parents went through a no-fault divorce where my mother was not the chief beneficiary.
>>I would not put 100 percent of the onus upon women, many of whom actually want a permanent marriage without divorce.
I wouldn’t either. And I didn’t. But, women do support no-fault more than men. With no-fault, a woman can decide that “we’ve grown apart” and leave, take the kids, and run her ex into bankruptcy through child support and there is nothing he can do to stop it.
You know, we could avoid this whole ‘fault’ thing if we just used our bio-genetic skills to create humans who were asexual in nature and could reproduce without having to find a mate.
>>You know, we could avoid this whole fault thing if we just used our bio-genetic skills to create humans who were asexual in nature and could reproduce without having to find a mate.
Or the government could artificially inseminate women when it is their turn to procreate. A central family planning agency could choose the perfect sperm to mate with the woman’s egg and “child support” could be paid out of the national treasury which all men could then labor to pay for. Forward!
While I understand your point Bryan92 there are still many people who marry who allow no place for divorce in their beleif system and would not have bar of it.
That’s the dream of militant lesbians. Without the totally “asexual” part, that is. Ever since they discovered that the whiptail lizard species is all female and reproduces asexually without needing a male, that certainly has been their dream.
But in the past, plenty of asexual adult humans abounded; they were called “eunuchs”, though.
>>While I understand your point Bryan92 there are still many people who marry who allow no place for divorce in their beleif system and would not have bar of it.
I agree. My wife and I have been married for 31 years. In that time, I’ve seen so many people destroyed by the ease of no-fault divorce (many try and fail multiple times because its easier to split up than make up).
“OReillys contention that same-sex marriage opponents often thump the Bible to make their point.}
Oh really, O’Reilly?
Ooh, I really don’t agree. From what I’ve seen, it gave men permission to run off in a mid-life crisis while his abandoned wife is admonished to ;move on and put it behind her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.