Even Bill O'Reilly is supporting gay marriage?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 4:55 AM GMT
    This is quite something!

    http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=9ca7efa6-5a1d-4443-97be-00cd871b6726

    I think this year, 2008, is going to be one of my most favorite years ever!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 5:01 AM GMT
    The anti San Fransisco O'reilly is at it again - Unreal how these right wing nuts think they know it all, true he is just talking out of his ass with no good reasons left
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 5:10 AM GMT
    Did you watch the vid? He was arguing on our side!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 5:12 AM GMT
    Yeah which I found odd as he usually argues on the other side, this is what makes me wonder about him ..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 5:21 AM GMT
    What I think it shows is that one of the biggest right-wing boogey men (us gays) is starting to crumble as a rallying point. If one of the biggest right-wing scare-mongers doesn't think it has much traction, and starts arguing the other side, it seems pretty clear to me that this is the beginning of the end!

    This is a watershed moment, really.

    Or am I just on drugs here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 5:42 AM GMT
    He points out that the religious argument isn't going to carry it this.

    I think this is indicative of how the country is moving away from the irrationalism of religion. They had their chance to run society and the government. Their proponents have failed miserably. Trotting out gays as the boogy man that will ruin society rings hollow after what they have done. Their judgment has been so abysmally poor on everything else, people are not going to accept their judgment on gays and gay marriage. As O'Reilly says, they are going to have to give a reason for why gay marriage is not good for California. This brief period of marrages before the Nov. voting will be very influencial in favor of gay marraige because of all the business that is being generated as a result. Whole industries associated with weddings will now be in favor of gay marriages. Fuck morality, show us the money.

    Of course, there are religious people who will still vote against gay marriage. But it is the vast independent middle that needs to be carried. And that is going to be far harder this time.

    That argument that the definition of marriage has always been that of a man and a women isnt going prevail. Because by that thinking nothing can progress. Slavery was once the way it had always been. But that didnt make it right.

    I am not sure that amendments to constitutions will be legal. There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. James Madison wrote about in the Federalist Papers. The Bill of Rights were created to protect minorities from majorities. Majorities dont need protection. If a straight majority can take the rights away from a gay minority, then why cant any majority take the rights from any minority.

    Back in the '60s, in the effort to make government more transparent, to banish the back room deals, our government was altered to make it more democratic. But by becoming more democratic, it became more political. Meaning the elected officials of our government had to be more conscious of every position and how it played to "the people." No longer could they use their better judgment. More democratic doesnt mean more freedom or more liberal. You get the mess we have now, where the government is totally run by the mood of the people right now. And the people quite frankly arent informed enough to make such decisions.

    oh I digress....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 5:47 AM GMT
    I think it is the drugs. I seem to be the only one so far who can view this as an amazingly positive, even pivotal event.

    Sigh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 6:31 AM GMT
    I am a libertarian, and I don't watch O'Reilly much, but that was about as good an interview on our side as we are going to get. Bill made the spokesman for the otherside look like an idiot. He repeatedly asked him how it would effect straight marriage and how it would effect California and each time the guy tried to side step the question, Bill brought him back to the point. It made the str8t guy look stupid and unprepared. He probably went on the show thinking it would be a cake walk and walked away saying, "who the hell booked me on that show?".

    I think every gay person that watched that interview should email O'Reilly and thank him. He did more in 2 minutes for our side than Ellen or Rosie or whoever. They speak TO us, but they do not need to CONVINCE us. His viewers don't always agree with us, and he pummeled the guy. Pummeled. That guy was knocked silly in the first minute and never regained his composure. He looked like an idiot.

    If that was a UFC fight, the str8 spokesman would be tapping out in the first round.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 7:49 AM GMT
    Maybe he wasn't fighting 'for' gay rights so much as calling Bullshit when he saw it.

    You can be opposed to something and still demand a valid point of contention. Not everyone is a fanboy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 9:03 AM GMT
    Buckwheet saidMaybe he wasn't fighting 'for' gay rights so much as calling Bullshit when he saw it.


    Well, that's certainly a possibility, but as the master of bullshit himself, it seems quite significant for him to call bullshit on a conservative commentator, arguing that he has no reason to oppose gay marriage.

    We don't think this is... uh... unusual? Like ground-breaking unusual? Like Hell-Just-Froze-Over unusual?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 9:28 AM GMT
    Why does everyone think his position is "groundbreaking" or unusual? Do you watch him regularly? Is this position different in some way?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 9:33 AM GMT
    It doesn't play. icon_sad.gif

    I'm looking for a youtube version or something...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 9:42 AM GMT
    iguanaSF said
    We don't think this is... uh... unusual? Like ground-breaking unusual? Like Hell-Just-Froze-Over unusual?


    It is certainly odd and I wonder about O'Reilly's motivation for the line of questioning he took (given his prior history). Could be that he was simply probing the reasoning behind the attorney's argument or he has decided that it is too tired an issue to continue pursuing.

    What I found interesting was the attorney's apparent lack of preparation for his own argument. His entire basis seemed to be "Marriage shouldn't apply to faggots because they're faggots." That further explains why he might not do so well arguing in front of a court of law.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 29, 2008 12:04 PM GMT
    Lying media whore that he is


    <object width=">
  • redheaded_dud...

    Posts: 408

    Jun 29, 2008 12:40 PM GMT
    from the original interview: I don't think that was a watershed moment. I listen to O'Reilly's radio show and occasionally watch The Factor on Fox News. It's not uncommon for him to "call a conservative out". If the conservative hasn't thought out the position they're positing, O'Reilly will often make them squirm. That's what he's doing here, and it's not that unusual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 4:58 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidI am a libertarian.


    Ah, that explains it.
  • Teacherguy

    Posts: 150

    Jun 29, 2008 5:14 PM GMT
    hmmmm fascinating...change is coming...there might be hurdles along the way but it will come. Just this past week marked the 5 year anniversary for legal gay marriage here in Canada. Which is exciting...just got to remain politically active and let our voices be heard.
  • Buddha

    Posts: 1766

    Jun 29, 2008 5:30 PM GMT
    He wasn't really on 'our' side, he was merely being objective. A classic argument not only makes the opponent's argument invalid, but also gives reason why their argument is valid and he only did the former.

    The whole thing is riddiculous. Not the same type of relationship? Is that based on sex? Because in earlier times interracial marriage was illegal because of the same reason; our view of what's 'natural' and not.

    And the worst part was probably his point of 'making the definition of a word change'. Is he saying that words can't change meaning? We have so many semantic changes in our words that we split it up a dozen subcategories in order to try make a system of the chaos of semantic changes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 5:37 PM GMT
    I just cannot get behind O'Reilly on anything as he is a liar, bigot, and well - I will leave it there.
  • auryn

    Posts: 2061

    Jun 29, 2008 6:40 PM GMT
    I think he's trying to get them to think outside of the box and was playing devil's advocate more than being on "our side". It's more like he was trying to get the guy to think of other ways to defeat gay marriage; essentially brainstorming.