Posted on 03/28/2013 4:27:22 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
BOR shucks-—can’t watch him at all and couldn’t hack his talk radio show either. No wonder it tanked—was pretty bad.
If there is one thing O'Reilly is NOT, it's a conservative..!!
Well Mr. O’ Reilly wny dont we treat polygamists and pedophiles with equality.
Your argument sucks you POS.
O’Reilly is in the public eye and directly contradicts the Catholic Church by supporting homosexual unions,homosexual adoptions, and the distribution of contraceptives.
He should be denied communion and his bishop seriously consider publicly calling him out on it.
“The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals.”
The anal sex perverts do not have the compelling argument, not any more than those that have sex with animals.
Bill O’Reilly sucks, I suspect.
Sad is that PhoyCons who still fantasize “Fox News is Conservative” will boot lick everything O’Vilely says.
Time to wake up....Fox News is not Conservative
I tuned out O’Reilly a couple of years ago. He’s a populist - not a conservative.
It appears as if Catholicism is PE#1 whether the subject is birth control, abortion, or gay rights and “marriage”. This is a conveyed effort by Obama to tear down the very fabric that has made this country great. As bad as the government had been, I I think I am even more frightened of the fact that the Catholic Church does not want to fight back.
The silence on the part of the so called good guys like Republicans and the church is very disheartening.
By the end of his 2nd term, Obama will have fundamentally changed the United States of America and it will soon be a country that none of us recognize or even want to live in anymore.
This is the guy writing ‘Killing Jesus”
Well, Bill. I wonder what the Prince of Peace would think about you calling his followers ‘Bible thumpers’.
I don’t thump the Bible. I take it to heart as the inspired Word of God
So an infertile woman should not have sex with her husband?
O’Reilly is thumping his own chest as usual, this time at the expense of traditional Americans. He’s a disgusting piece of garbage.
The argument against homosexual sex is a simple one. The sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting people of the same sex is ZERO.
I wrote of contra-ception. That’s when you block conception by putting a cap on it or monkeying with your hormones.
An infertile woman does not block conception. She does not contracept. She does not render herself infertile by an action she has taken.
I’m sick and tired of stupid silly arguments like this.
When you have a real argument against what I wrote, write it.
Until them, don’t make a fool of yourself.
You are the one who spoke of uncoupling sex and conception. I was merely making the point that sex inside marriage is permissible and moral even with no chance of conception. The same argument works with a woman who has had a hysterectomy. Conception is certainly blocked, but sex with her husband is right and moral. God also gave us sex inside marriage as a pleasure, not just a means of conceiving
As for being a fool, that is hardly the worst I’ve been called. But thank you for your kind words.
OReilly is going through a reassessment of his life after his recent bitter divorce from his wife, and his concept of marriage is “evolving”.
He wants to get an annulment so that as a supposed Catholic he can get remarried.
But if thinks homosexual marriage is OK, why would he be pressuring the Catholic Church to get an annulment? Just go get remarried Bill - there are no longer any definitions of marriage. Everything is in play now - polygamy, incest, man-boy love. These people deserve to be with the ones they love just like homosexuals do.
And you Republican politicians - it’s just another set of groups you can start pandering to. Polygamy alone will help you take over the muslim vote.
Slouching to Gomorrah. Robert Bork was a true prophet.
No the same argument does NOT work. Period.
Look, your logical fallacy is to think I mean by “linking sex to procreation” that I am saying that every sex act needs to be capable of resulting in conception. Sex is linked to procreation if one follows the natural cycles by which a woman for some days of each period and after menopause is not going to conceive.
Using natural cycles still links to procreation; the natural cycles (or disease in the case of infertility before menopause or on the part of the man) mean conception will not take place but nothing has been contra-ed.
Before widespread contra-ception, no one could think of sex without also thinking of procreation. Yes, after menopause they knew the woman would not conceive.
But no one ever thought of sex as taking place only after menopause. You raise an extreme, an exception and generalize to the whole in a gotcha move.
Widespread contraception practiced by fertile couples casually and routinely has changed our perception.
We now DO in fact perceive of sex as something that routinely can happen without conception because we contra- the conception.
That has permitted the homosexuals to argue that their sex is the same as hetero sex.
Now pay attention:
They
could
not
make
such
a
laughable
claim
had we not turned sex, routinely (not merely after menopause or in the exception-case of known infertility) into non-procreative sex.
But live with your gotcha defense of contraception. You pro-contraception people are living in denial of what has resulted from widespread contraception. And all of us paying dearly for it.
But you’ll never admit it. Contraception is too important to you to think clearly about what it has wrought. See Mary Eberstadt, Adam and Eve after the Pill.
“making the point that sex inside marriage is permissible and moral even with no chance of conception”
if the no chance of conception results from disease (infertility is not normal) or from age (post-menopause)
is different from
“no chance of conception” resulting from putting a rubber over the phallus or putting a barrier into the woman’s body or tampering with her hormones.
Apples and oranges.
One of them spits in the face of conception. The other accepts a non-chosen condition either created by God himself (menopause) or caused by some abnormality beyond one’s control.
If you cannot see the difference between the two then we live in different worlds and will not communicate much of anything.
“The same argument works with a woman who has had a hysterectomy”
Yeah, so why don’t all the 20-somethings who don’t want to have any babies but do want to have sex
go
out
and
get
hysterectomies?
Yeah, just as I thought. That WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT.
So the SAME argument
don’t
work.
Anyone that engages in sex with someone of of the same sex is a degenerate pervert that needs mental help, not approval of their unhealthy, perverted conduct, which if continued will lead to a shorten lifespan. AIDs would be almost wiped out in American if homosexuals realized their anus is for exit, not entry. That the government actually condones this unhealthy, unnatural, demented behavior, after thousands of years of calling it a an unnatural perversion, should be put in Ripley’s Believe It Or Not.
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.