Posted on 04/08/2013 7:25:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
During the highly publicized exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham on "gay" marriage, O'Reilly made this statement: "There are Bible thumpers, and all they do is say, 'I object to gay marriage because God objects to it.' You don't win a policy debate in America with that."
Really?
Before central control out of Washington was imposed in 2003, policy arguments for criminalizing homosexual acts were won explicitly "with that." And because of "that," the idea of "gay" marriage has been unthinkable throughout the history of the American nation.
Just over four years ago, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama was part of the winning policy debate in America, disapproving of "gay" marriage. That moral debate, consistent with America's history, was won "with that." In fact, Barack Obama was quite the Bible-thumper on the campaign trail.
Barack Obama was for "gay" marriage (1996) before he was against it (2004 Senate race; 2008 presidential race) before he was for it again (2012). But during his tenure during which he was against it, he based his opposition to it on "that." The "that," of course, was his alleged Christian faith.
At the Rick Warren forum in August of 2008, Obama stated: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God is in the mix."
Hmm. We learn in the Bible that God considers marriage a sacred union. In fact, Christian cultures have long referred to marriage as "holy matrimony." Though polygamy existed in ancient cultures, there is no biblical record of God establishing it. God originally placed one man with one woman, and in the New Testament, God makes clear that a man should have one wife.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
BOR thinks 3000000 viewers makes him god. It does not.
O’who?
Oh, yeah, the guy who really thinks a Harvard MBA is worth a plugged nickel in the world of reality.
I’m a conservative and Bill O just always seems to annoy more than anything. I’m married to someone who likes to watch him. I have hearing aids and I always turn it off or down so I don’t have to listen to him lol
It's just a matter of Whom you want to WILL be accountable to.
Count me among the ex-watchers
“Gay rights” is a spearpoint in the war on Christianity that the left is conducting for their master.
BOR thinks 3000000 viewers makes him god. It does not.
********************
The antichrist will have more followers than this fool. O’Reilly is just as arrogant a narcissist as Obama.
I here that when you invite him to a party at your home you have to hide all your mirrors to keep him from spending all night talking to himself.
Oreilly is past his sell by date
Between politics and God, God will win every time.
We can shake our fists at God, prohibit His name from being mentioned in political debates (except as a curse word), and deny His relevance in the public square.
Bit when it comes down to it, all of us, both as individuals and as a nation, will one day have to answer to Him, and Him alone.
Great point.
We are already being forced to chose between gay rights and religious liberty.
The goal is to criminalize Christianity, to use the power of the State to oppress, punish, and exterminate Christians.
“Gay rights” is simply a vehicle to that end.
Look at what Canada’s been doing, and you’ll see the beginnings of that goal coming to fruition.
What has happened to the sex drive of young males that they prefer gay sex to any kind of sex with a female? Are these young men afraid to pursue sex with females for fear of rejection, or what is the possible reason they get involved with gay sex?
The CDC recently had a statistic of 110 MILLION ACTIVE STD INFECTIONS IN THE US. (This may have been reported on this forum,) but ONE out of THREE Americans has an active STD of one kind or another.
They are in a state of suspended adolescence, narcissistically fascinated with their own genitals. The closest thing to their own genitalia is that of another man. They have not reached the maturity that attracts them to the "other," i.e., that which is not like them. Add to that the desire for male closeness that many boys miss out on due to being raised by single mothers.
Gay young men screw like rabbits, and it doesn’t matter to them a whit whether they know the person they’re having sex with. Think of how easy that is compared to working to build and maintain a relationship with a woman.
I agree with the idea that the religious argument isn’t the best argument and if anything retreating to that argument has been used to box the issue in. However Bill who is supposed to be a conservative Catholic is being intellectually dishonest because there are plenty of secular non religious arguments the problem is who does he bring on his show to talk about SSM? Does he bring a PhD who makes a secular and even scientific argument against it? No he doesn’t he and “conservative” media almost unilaterally call on religious representatives or political activists. So who has made it seem as if the only argument is a religious argument? It has been Bill and others. I believe that there are several strong arguments to be made.
1. The liberty argument. Homosexual activists are one of the most relentless users of political correctness and thought police methods. This is a clear winner for SSM opponents and there are hundreds of examples of how SSM has been used to discriminate against and suppress anyone who even causally disagrees with gay propaganda on the issue. The problem is conservative media fails to make the over arching case. While the left makes a gay student going to the Prom a national issue our conservative media can’t seem to find time to whip up the fervor when a student is kicked out of a college program because of disapproval of homosexuality/SSM. Every time a person is fired or discriminated because of views running contrary to gay activism they should be highlighted and given national attention as examples of how gay activism/SSM threatens liberty.
2. Show gay activists for what they are. We have allowed two faces of gay activism to exist. One for public consumption and the real one that is filled with sexual exhibitionism, obscenity, and vulgarity. The later would never be accepted by the mainstream but because the media doesn’t dare show or even discuss the reality of gay pride and gay activism people most of whom do not wish to expose themselves to such things end up thinking gay activism is about “equal marriage” and innocuous. Shouldn’t homosexuals be held to the same standards of decency as straights? I’ve never seen the degree of depravity in parades and in events as is typically on display at gay related activities.
3. The biological argument. Homosexuality is at its core damaging to the human organism’s ability to reproduce which from a pure Darwinian perspective is the definition of unfitness. This angle I believe hasn’t been used as effectively as it could against the left in general to provide a wedge. A lot of young people have been led to falsely believe that opposition to SSM and homosexuality is just a product of religion much as Feminists pushed the idea that the differences between men and women were just products of environment and “the patriarchy”. The reluctance to point out how homosexuality runs contrary to evolution I believe is rooted in that many especially religious opponents are afraid of using the tools of their foes against them plus many are afraid of the implications to their own views on reproduction because many religious people live essentially lives that could’ve just as easily been defined by Planned Parenthood minus abortion.
That said the religious argument shouldn’t be ignored because religious liberty faces a dire threat because SSM is really a tool to co-opt and control religious primarily Christian groups. Its a way to define Christianity as bigotry and anyone who thinks this is just the worry of “Bible Thumpers” is an idiot because government suppressing/control of religion and family is the key to establishing what is an essentially centralized secular state religion which will threaten liberty for all.
After checking the CDC STI estimates fact sheet, I would suggest that there is a high degree of likelihood that the 110 million active infections includes multiple diagnoses within a single patient. I seriously doubt that 110 million individual Americans has a sexually transmitted infection. If this were true, then I submit there would be a much higher number of people infected.
I stand with CHRIST! o’reilly does not.
LLS
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.