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 ...
Perhaps it may come as a surprise to some, but sexually transmitted diseases tend to be just a tad higher in incidence between male homosexuals than between a faithful man and his faithful wife.
Does not even nature teach?
O’Reilley is going through a divorce so he is distracted and he is straddling the fence. the only problem he fell down and the pointed fence posts have gotten him in the crotch so he is having a hard time discerning fact from fiction.
But he’s right. The inheritance tax would take his inheritance, and as a son you can only get SS benefits until a certain age (21?). But if you’re the spouse you get more benefits, and there is no “inheritance” since you’re the spouse.
You missed the point. By corrupting the definition of marriage they have opened Pandora’s Box to endless litigation. The “playing games” part started when the rules of the game were changed to include gay “marriage”.
Exactly! They have corrupted the definition of marriage, and now we all must discover the consequences. The biggest beneficiaries will be lawyers.
That’s why we should strip the government out of it. We’re playing their game on their court by their rules and will lose because of it.
RE: SCIENCE shows that it takes a male and a female to produce a baby. That’s why same sex marriage is a fraud.
Pro-gay marriage have a very easy argument against this -— Artificial Insemination for Lesbian Couples and Surrogates for Male Couples.
Barring that, they can always adopt.
This argument has been tried and the response has always been thusly.
RE: 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.
He has a point. Once you change the definition of marriage, nothing will stop the meaning of the word from “evolving” until it will mean anything to anyone, which in effect, makes it meaningless.
RE: 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.
Our tax laws DO NOT TAX a spouse’s inheriting a deceased husband’s estate. However our tax laws DO tax children inheriting their deceased parent’s estate.
The solution is to ABOLISH all inheritance taxes ( AKA DEATH or ESTATE taxes ).
Actually, it was faulty Biblical interpretation that was used to justify slavery. But it was also true Biblical interpretation that led the abolitionist movement and many, many white Christian men who gave their lives to sort it out.
The Republicans with their bowing and scraping are missing the opportunity to point out that economic exploitation of illegal immigrants is the same thing all over again, different day.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
I read the oral arguments. Oddly enough, the Bible wasn’t discussed. And marriage was around before the Bible was...
Anyone who thinks there is anything natural about sticking your penis up some guy’s butt isn’t a very good observer of nature or anatomy.
Well, I'm not watching him any more. He's gone off the rails.
Get a clue.
He has said repeatedly he is not a conservative or a Republican, but rather an independent. So you get what you paid for -- neither here nor there; any way the wind blows.
You should excuse the expression.
He used to be an English teacher at Monsignor Edward Pace High School in Miami when the Dean of Boys was an open homosexual and did not say anything about it then don’t expect him to say anything against it now.
I know a bunch of kids that went to this school and came out all screwed up .
The Bible contains several references to slavery. The Bible does not condemn slavery, but in fact supports the regulated practice of it, especially under the Old Testament, but also in the New Testament. <
Male Israelite slaves were to be offered release after seven years of service, with some stipulations.
Foreign slaves and their posterity became the perpetual property of the owner's family, except in the case of certain injuries. The regulation of slavery in the Bible, and absence of outright condemnation of it as an institution, was later used to justify slavery by its defenders. Abolitionists have also used text from the new testament to argue for the manumission of slaves,
Not Judeo-Christian traditions? Where do you think the concept of God given inalienable rights e.g. individual freedom and the economic system that necessarily derives from such came from the government? Wikipedia maybe?
I remember your ambitiousness well on several homosexual sex 'gay' topics - I would term your approach one of passive resistance. REALLY stupid too -you fool no one.
Your straw man argument about slavery was clue one...
Maybe you should seek greener pastures like DU?
exactely
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.