Skip to comments.O'Reilly blasts same-sex marriage critics
Posted on 04/07/2013 12:35:31 PM PDT by IbJensen
(CNN) - Bill O'Reilly, the conservative Fox News host, believes same-sex marriage advocates have a more convincing argument than opponents, who do nothing but rehash scripture to make their point.
"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals," O'Reilly said Tuesday on Fox. "That's where the compelling argument is. 'We're Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.' That's a compelling argument, and to deny that, you have got to have a very strong argument on the other side. The argument on the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the Bible."
O'Reilly has previously stated he takes a libertarian view on the issue, and repeated Tuesday night that it's a decision that should be left up to the states. "I support civil unions. I always have. The gay marriage thing, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or another."
Both sides of the debate clashed this week in Washington as the Supreme Court hears challenges to two cases dealing with the issue.
O'Reilly has been less critical of so-called Bible thumpers in the past. In a May 2009 column on his website, he again argued the matter should be decided by states but also said he understands that "most Americans believe heterosexual marriage deserves a special place in our society."
"Our Judeo-Christian traditions, which have made the United States the most prosperous and just society the world has ever known, speak to a family built around a responsible mother and a father-certainly the optimum when it comes to raising children," he wrote.
But, he argued, people who feel strongly about traditional marriage "have allowed themselves to be intimidated" and have refused to stand up for what they believe in.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Bill's not even middle of the road and his latest book is a disaster.
O’Reilly is an egomaniac that will say anything to make himself look good.
He probably thinks caving on the issue makes him look wise against the “far-right fringe”.
People will say the damnedest things to win favor with the commie lib “media”. Everybody wants to be “a nice person” even if it means sucking up to the sexual deviant crowd.
Individual freedeom, and the economic system known as capitalism is what made America great.
Now taking over is socialism and ... essentially ... slavery for individuals.
Bill O’Luffa is pathetic.
yes, CNN, I get all of my moral guidance from Bill O’Reilly (rolling eyes)
SCIENCE shows that it takes a male and a female to produce a baby. That’s why same sex marriage is a fraud.
If our Constitution can be interpreted that people have a right to violate nature, then it needs to be changed to reflect science.
BTW We can love people without having sex with them.
Individual and economic freedom are a direct result of biblical ideals. Capitalism was the name Marx gave to our free market system.
"The argument on the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the Bible."I can just imagine Bill telling this to Jesus when the time comes. -lol-
So you are saying that as a retired widow, if I marry it will be a fraud because I cannot produce a baby? BTW, I don’t think I could love a man in the Eros sense without wanting to have sex with him. Many in this country fail to understand the difference between Eros and Agape.
While on the subject of compelling arguments, let’s consider the case of the disenfranchised citizens of Washington, DC. They pay 100% federal income taxes, but have no Senate or voting House of Representatives delegates. This is clearly “taxation without representation.” What are all the pro legal/economic rights people going to do about that? To quote the article, “The compelling argument is on the side of [the DC citizens],” O’Reilly said Tuesday on Fox. “That’s where the compelling argument is. ‘We’re Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that, you have got to have a very strong argument on the other side.” What is the argument on the other side???
I wonder what Bill O’Really is packing.?..
It is starting to SUCK..
(A) it is child abuse to subject a child to being raised in the home of such an alternative lifestyle home.
(B) No employer or church should have to engage in celebration of same sex couplings if it goes against his or her moral beliefs. This redefines sin (YOU CAN’T CALL IT SINFUL ANYMORE BECAUSE THE LAVENDER MAFIA HAS SPOKEN).
(C) The once stated goal by such activists was to “Smash the Patriarchy”, “Smash Monogamy”, and otherwise subvert the established culture.
(D) Whenever it is put to vote, the public votes it down even in liberal strongholds like California and Massachusetts.
(E) Bill O’Rielly is a blowhard and a fool who once decried that there even was a war on religion.
yes, CNN, I get all of my moral guidance from Bill OReilly (rolling eyes)
Eye roll; half head turn; up and down motion with left hand..
In the good old days, Biblical ideals fully supported slavery.
If you engage in sex with the same sex, the marriage is a fraud against nature. Many male and female partners can not produce a baby but they still can engage is natural sex.
I always thought that Bill O'Reilly was a bit of a blowhard and a fool. He certainly is on this issue!
Those who support same sex marriage are placing perversion associated with a transient popular culture, above protecting the health and safety of the people.
This may be difficult for the likes of Bill O'Reilly to comprehend, but men and women are NOT interchangeable. The basis of Bill's compelling argument, is that men and women are interchangeable at will. However, this is not so, natural law prevails. Misguided decision-makers are supporting a popular culture that is transient and suicidal, mocks marriage, adds risk and cost to healthcare.
Has Bill O'Reilly considered facts such as: persons with homosexuality are significantly more likely to have psychological disorders, substance abuse problems, suicidal ideation, and to have been victims of childhood sexual abuse and violence. The relationships of men attracted to men are more likely to be short-lived and are almost never faithful over time. The HIV/AIDS epidemic among men who have sex with men continues unabated and has been linked to substance abuse and sexual addiction. Men who have sex with men are also 44 times more likely to be HIV positive, and far more likely to be inflected with other sexually transmitted diseases.
Time obliterates the fictions of opinion and confirms the decisions of nature. ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
I am far from being a Bible thumper, whatever that is. I reject homo whatever because I believe they are mentally ill. You do not grant exemptions to psychopaths and kleptomaniacs due to their disorders, why should those afflicted with same sex attraction disorder (SSAD) be so special?
Religion has nothing to do with it for those that recognize it as a sick aberration that should not be accepted as "normal".
You know you know, always right O’Reilly is a nitwit
Well he’s right sadly.
Quoting the Bible is NOT Enough. When the low-info voter sees two dudes or two women basically minding their own business in a clean house and being “like us” like what they are fed on TV, what the hell else are they going to buy? That the better argument is a bible verse?
Oooh that’ll work.
It’s just another example of conservative laziness. If we are going to make a case against this, it had better be something more bullet proof.
We do know he is a sexual harasser.
Always nice to hear from the Baptist ladies... :-)
If OReilly was actually a Constitution-protecting conservative, he should be emphasizing that the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that marriage is a unique state power issue. But just as with constitutionally indefensible Obamacare, we cannot expect pro-unconstitutionally big federal government Fx News to bring the Founding State’s division of federal and state government powers into public policy discussions.
It’s too bad that many conservatives probably think that OReilly is really watching out for them.
How much longer will we have to listen to mentions of this putz.
Please just skip posting anything about this ego-maniacal smelly lump of cow pie.
“The argument on the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.’
Excuse me O’reilly, but I’ll go with what my heavenly fathers says, who happens to be greater than you and me and knows what’s best.
O’Reilly is a legend in his own mind, and CNN knows a closet liberal when they see one.
I know he’s writing Killing Jesus. I hope he’s good at dodging lightning!
Will Kant to it for you?
“All moral actions can be universalized.”
What happens if you universalized homosexuality? You get no gay people after about 20 years.
Ergo - homosexuality cannot be universalised and it is immoral.
I haven’t seen “nature” in any law courts crying “fraud!!”
As far as I am concerned, Bill O’Reilly is dead from a self-inflicted wound.
“Bill Reilly, meet Lot; Lot, Bill Reilly.”
It will destroy an atheist society just as quickly as it will destroy a Christian society.
Wouldn’t the libertarian position be against the state recognizing any marriage?
(CNN) - Bill O’Reilly, the conservative Fox News host
Conservative? No. No one that supports or defends the expansion of the perversion of homosexuality into our society is a conservative
While I take my values and morals from scripture, rather than play god by picking and choosing my own according to expedience, I know that the traditional definition of marriage doesn’t depend on scripture, but has five thousand years of civilization supporting it. A perversion like homosexuality shouldn’t be allowed to change that.
Bill O’Reilly has become the NEW LEADER OF THE HOMO TRIBES.
“So you are saying that as a retired widow, if I marry it will be a fraud because I cannot produce a baby?”
You’re twisting words. Now, THAT is just plain silly of you.
Supposing you were younger, still married to a man, and had to have a hysterectomy. You could still have sex.
>>>While on the subject of compelling arguments, lets consider the case of the disenfranchised citizens of Washington, DC. They pay 100% federal income taxes, but have no Senate or voting House of Representatives delegates. This is clearly taxation without representation. >>>
Talk to the democrats. They have kept the people in D.C. on the “reservation” so they could point to them as poor people who NEED government handouts. Yet, when a Republican is president, they can blame that party for all the “poor” people within D.C.
That is because Bill O' Reilly does NOT believe the Word of God, or what God has to say about homosexuality, sodomy, or the BIBLICAL institution of marriage! Given these facts it is no wonder O'REALLY takes the UNBIBLICAL position of Sodomite "marriage". All I can say is I wouldn't want to be in UNBELIEVER O' Reilly's shoes when he stands before The Lord Jesus Christ, the righteous judge.
As a side note, one like O'REALLY can claim to be a "christian" but if he does not BELIEVE the Word of God, what kind of so-called "christian" is he in reality?
The actor Jeremy Irons says he’s a libertarian. He said in an interview that perhaps a man should be able to marry his son. That way the son’s inheritance would be assured, since our laws most favor the spouse. The interviewer said that would be incest, and therefore illegal — to which Irons responded no it wouldn’t, since the idea behind incest laws is to prevent deformed offspring, and since males can’t produce offspring that isn’t a factor. He said lawyers will enjoy years and years of litigation as marriage continues to be redefined and expanded.
Sounds like this Irons guy is throwing a lot of chaff into the air. If a man wants his estate to go to his son he needs to write it into his will and the courts need to stop playing games and recognize a will as written.
The simple fact is that the state had little to do with marriage until the 1850s