Skip to comments.O'Reilly blasts same-sex marriage critics
Posted on 04/07/2013 12:35:31 PM PDT by IbJensen
click here to read article
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
O’Reilly is a total ass. Nothing would make me happier than to see his show go down in flames.
Maybe incest laws interfere with 'rights'. What next?
Bill is a homo in his own right. If two homosexuals wanted to adopt a grandchild of his he would find nothing wrong with them using his little grandbaby as a sperm bank.
O’Reilly is a posturing ass.
I’m still trying to understand how the homo marriage thing jives with separation of church and state.
the govt can make all the noises it wants... churches do not have to follow it.
Exactly. We’re trying to play their game on their court by their rules.
> What is the argument on the other side???
The argument is simply this.
Like Canada and the Netherlands, it will become illegal to teach against homosexuality. It almost is now.
It will be illegal to deny to homosexual “couples” services reserved for marriage and married couples.
It will be illegal to preach the gospel, because you won’t be able to preach SIN. Can’t preach the good news without preaching the bad news first.
“Safe” sex will be taught in the government schools not just for heterosexual couplings, but for homosexual ones, right down to the kindergarten level.
Brainwashing of little children about homosexuality can begin in earnest.
Those who believe the Bible is the Word of God will be even more marginalized than they are today, with their jobs, businesses, livelihoods, freedoms, and even their lives in jeopardy.
All these things have already started, and they will become much worse once the marriage of homosexuals becomes endorsed by the power of the state.
Imagine life in the United States as one unending, daily celebration of homosexuality, a perpetual gay pride parade.
“OReilly 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.”
I think your right, hes not even paying attention to the propose and nature of the institution of marriage. The reason behind condemnation of the sin of sodomy.
Unfortunately most of our modern civilization has forgotten what real marriage is too, this is in itself the primary reason they are unable to defend it. Marriage for most people today is about a feeling among the parents, not for the children.
Looking back just 300 years ago and this idea of marriage seems almost ridiculousness given that so many marriages were in fact arranged. If marriage was all about love and not about children why on earth would any marriage have been arranged?
Marriage is primarily about children, it is not suitable nor should it be desirable if you have not capacity of children for which it was meant to protect.
At least I know that I will not be tormented by him when I get to heaven.
Let’s see..Money/fortune and fame vs. God.
Most seem to pick the money, don’t they.
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.