O'Reilly Lame Duck Comment - Cali Prop 8 Upheld

[Boohbahnooh]

@scamoosh my bad, I can't see my comment and I think I left it a while ago. What are animals?

[Boohbahnooh]

animals aren't protected under civil laws. Gay people are not animals, bill

[Ihopyourpancakes]

That should read "the vast intellectual advantage she holds OVER O'Reilley."

[Ihopyourpancakes]

What a crock of crap his arguments are. Megyn Kelley should run that show. She deserves it more, given the vast intellectual advantage she holds I've O'Rielley. I love how he says "my argument is a smarter one" and then proceeds to give a fantastically asinine claim.

[funk7000]

This label of "homophobia" directed at anybody and everybody who disagrees with homosexuality is old, tired, and played out. But you all been trained like robots to continuously use that tactic, haven't you?

[funk7000]

You don't like O'Reilly's analogy about ducks, but it's okay for homosexuals to use animals humping same sex animals as an analogy to try to prove your point, which is false by the way

[control2007]

I'm absolutely appalled at Bill O'Reilly. This is the worst argument that you could find. Men could marry ducks? Seriously? Because in law ducks have the same legal standing as a human being. With respect to it being a choice. Isn't your religion a choice and don't we protect people's right to choose their religion. This is absolutely absurd and I firmly believe that gays deserve all the rights that straights have.

[RicochetBoing]

RVT316 - You unfortunately did not get the point of the posting. And... Calling people derogatory names and cussing is not necessary.

[RVT316]

You IDIOT that's not what O'Reilly was saying. Holy shit.  He's making an argument in regards to the PRECEDENT that gay marriage would set. By the way, I am one-THOUSAND percent in favor of gay marriage, but people like you who are so sensitive towards ANY opinion turns a lot of people off. I know a lot of gay people and they don't like to be treated like fucking children. "Hey gays, Bill O'Reilly compared you to a duck, he's ignorant, I <3 gays! Yay gays! Let's be friends!" Jesus.

[greneath]

fox news are the most unbias open minded news network in america!

but only when the news supports their right wing bigoted views.

[mgunslinger17]

Were other civil rights issues in history decided by majority vote of citizens? No. Issues such as interracial marriage, segregation, certain women's rights, etc. were decided by courts. Federal judges are the ones in charge of deciding if certain practices are constitutional, not the majority. America is not a true democracy but a democratic republic. If everything were a majority vote, minorities would be in a very different place today.

[mgunslinger17]

"Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression."

[seatyou101]

WOW? a smarter argument? that couldn't be any more of a dumb comment, so marrying a gay is like marrying a duck? so, gays aren't human beings?

[KingDingaLing090]

Shut up fag

[katchison]

I can tell you the reason that was Upheld. As a californian I was able to see the horrible bullshit adds for prop 8. The most popular i think was about protecting families. Suuuuch bullshit.

[chillindlas]

I hate fox news. so very much. what is the problem witch letting gays get married.

[GWBushsuks]

did you ever notice when O'reilly trys to make a point or dosen't like a comment he inhales deeply into his nose?

a Freudian slip through ego perhaps?

[SET4B2]

How can any guy be gay when there's women like Megan out there? No offense, but she is so desirable. Man, she's pretty.

[rigolan]

"the will of people"

ok, great, but when the majority is intollerant and puts minorities' rights in jeopardy, you realize that democracy has its limits.

[RealTime88]

As angry as this vote in California makes me, the judges shouldn't enforce decisions without the will of the people and there will be another vote, the gay couples who voted No shouldn't give up.

[jetta1956]

Billo is way into gay issues too much!!!

Me think he doth protest too much.................

[slicbro]

If we re-open marriage to a debate, then we have to bring everybody to the table, including three way marriage groups?

[bernardwilliams]

No, that's wrong. See my comments above.

[ohhhhhcool]

he has a point though. what is to stop people wanting to marry their siblings, or participate in polyandry, polygyny, etc. they will all want the label of marriage. This can not happen

[bernardwilliams]

Because some claims to marry are more justified than others, since some relationships cause great harm and are exploitative, but not all types of relationship are wrong. There is nothing wrong about two people of the same sex loving one another, whereas there is with a man loving a child.

[ohhhhhcool]

THAT IS THE POINT! Who is to say WHAT relationships are wrong and WHAT are right? Right? If that is the gay rights argument, then those really fighting for gay rights must also understand that if the definition of marriage can be changed for them, then it should be changed for other forms of marriage.

[bernardwilliams]

Who is to say what is wrong and what is right? Well we generally use our moral intuitions and argument to determine that. I would hope your moral intuitions determine that two adults loving one another is substantially different from an adult and a child.

[ohhhhhcool]

So you say that we use our "moral intuitions" to determine what form of marriage is right and what isn't?

Would you also say that every citizens moral intuitions are indentical? Obviously not.... So we will therefore all come to conclusions that are slightly different.

Now when the brother and sister come forward who want to marry, or first cousins, or, as crazy as it sounds, an animal and his owner..THEIR moral intuitions will say THEY are right. They would accuse you of being a biggot

[bernardwilliams]

We use moral intuitions and argument to support the right of straight couples to marry so why shouldn't it be used to support gay marriage? If marriage rights were stripped from straights we'd say that was wrong, based on our moral intuitions and arguments. So appeal to moral intuitions and arguments isn't flawed, unless appeal to it is flawed in denying straight people marriage. So what makes the moral intuitions allowing straight marriage correct? You have to rely on them.

[bernardwilliams]

I am saying the argument that if we grant marriage to same sex couples then we have to grant it to paedophiles is invalid, since the reasons why same sex couples should be allowed to marry don't apply to paedophilic relations, namely, that one should be able to marry the adult of one's choice. Why deny marriage to loving adults when it causes no harm? One should not be able to marry the child of one's choice since this is harmful and exploitative.

[bernardwilliams]

'Who is to say what relationships are wrong and what are right.' If that's your argument against me then it would also apply to heterosexual marriage now. Since heterosexuals can be married, who is to say that adults can't marry children, since you can't say that adults can't marry children on the basis that that is wrong, for who is to claim what is wrong? That's absurd

[ohhhhhcool]

You are missing my whole argument bernard. I am not saying that adults should marry children... i am saying that based on the gay rights movement argumenet, logic would say that they should be able to. When i said "who is to say what relationships are wrong and what are right", i was stating that as the argument of those wanting to change marriage!

Everyone seems to think that if we all become equal on EVERY playing field, then everyone will be happy. Quite the opposite actually.

[bernardwilliams]

But the logic of my argument does not commit me to saying that pedophiles should be able to marry children since the reasons that same sex married couples should be allowed to marry don't apply to pedophiles. The reason is, namely, that it should be a right that an adult can marry another adult, period. There ought to be no right for adults to enter into marriage or any sexual relations with minors because of the harm it causes, so the cases of gay marriage and pedophile are disanalagous.

[ohhhhhcool]

*Sigh* And what about brother and sister who are both adults? first cousins?

[bernardwilliams]

Such relationships are harmful physiologically and psychologically, unlike same-sex relationships. It should be a right to marry the adult of your choice so long as the relationships are per se harmful.

[bernardwilliams]

You just simply can't equate same sex relationships with pedophilic or polygamous relationships. It's insulting. Your argument could have been used to deny inter-racial couples marriage rights, on the grounds that, if inter-racial couples can be married, who's to say we can't extend marriage to child molestors. So the regress argument is invalid.

[ohhhhhcool]

I don't know where you are getting this crap about child molesters, i never made that relationship...

ANYWAYS, this discussion has reached an ending, because your statement that "such relationships are harmful physiologically and psychologically" is the ultimate argument, and we are obviously getting nowhere fast. People will always debate this topic, and some believe same sex marriage is harmful those ways, and others do not. I just hope that all the hate that comes with it will stop.

[bernardwilliams]

Respectfully, sir, it is simply fact that same sex relationships are no more harmful than straight ones are, according to the leading US health bodies, and it is a fact, according to those same bodies, that relationships between adults and children ARE harmful. That's why granting marriage to same sex couples does not entail granting marriage rights to adult-child relationships, nor to polygamists.

[ohhhhhcool]

HAHAHA thanks for proving the "facts".

[bernardwilliams]

The American Psychological association explicitly states that homosexual relationships aren't harmful and unhealthy. Relationships between adults and children are harmful. Speak to any doctor. They can cause psychological issues, etc. Polygamous relationships are generally harmful, according to the research that has been done in that area. When I say 'harmful', I mean by medical and pschological standards.

[nxdxboy]

Well medical and psychological standards change. They once said homosexuals were mentally ill so I don't put much stock into them unfortunately. They are in the business of pathologizing and anytime something different comes along, it's a "condition." I get what you're trying to say but we need to stay open minded about all types of relationships, even if they go against social norms or we're just as bad as homophobes.

[bernardwilliams]

If we are to make public policy based on the harms that a certain lifestyle leads to we must rely on the best medical and psychological opinion, regardless of whether that changes. Even apart from expert medical and psychological opinion, polygamous relationships have generally been (by sociologists) been found to be prone to exploitation and related to all sorts of problems. This is grounds enough for distinguishing homosexual and polygamous relations.

[MAKEMETINY]

'm saying we SHOULD NOT base public policies on psychological and medical opinions cause they are in the business of PATHOLOGIZING. Homosexuality was once considered mental illness and back then policy was shaped around that belief but we now see its WRONG! understand? don't know what exploitation you're talkin about w/ polygamous peoples but i doubt you really know about polygamy. by definiton polygamy can be distinguished from homosexuality we need to stop saying one is better than the other!

[bernardwilliams]

Well what should we base marital policy then, if not sound scientific advice concerning the potential relationships accorded marriage? The state can't grant marriage to any old relationship, regardless of the moral properties of that relationship. But what are the moral properties of homosexual relationships that are so problematic?

[jrjones529]

Your logic is way off. Liberals are fighting for equality for people who should have it but who don't. We are not fighting for equality of criminals, etc (hence your example of people marrying children)

[Staticnz]

Unbelievable. I cannot believe he thinks his marrying an animal is comparable to marrying another consenting human being. What's more I cannot believe he actually thinks that is a smart argument.

He is as dumb as pig shit.

[agnosticautonomy]

why would the state recognize marriage if it is discriminating one group from being able to have the same title just because they were born differently. It seems like the argument that "marriage is between a man and a woman" is religious based argument. But church and state are suppose to be separate.

[ANGLEBOOT]

Humm... blue states, red states, now pink states.

The new third party.