O’Reilly admits that ‘tolerance’ of gays bothers him.
O’Reilly admits that ‘tolerance’ of gays bothers him.
Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that on the 10/23 edition of his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly accused Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling of being a “provocateur” for “the gay agenda” of “indoctrination” after she outed one of her main characters. O’Reilly continued his broadside against Rowling on his show last night, saying the real problem is that she is teaching “tolerance” and “parity for homosexuals with heterosexuals”:
O’REILLY: Here’s — you can talk about this on your radio show tomorrow. There are millions of Americans who feel that the media and the educational system is trying to indoctrinate their children to a certain way of life, and that includes parity for homosexuals with heterosexuals.
And that’s what this Rowling thing is all about, because she sells so many books. So many kids read it, that she comes out and says, “Oh, Dumbledore is gay, and that’s great.” And this — it’s another in the indoctrination thing. That’s what the belief system is among some Americans.
MILLER: I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think you can indoctrinate a kid into being gay. You might indoctrinate him into trying it once and him going, “I guess I’m not gay.”
[crosstalk]
O’REILLY: No, but tolerance. It’s — you know, he’s not going to be gay, but it’s tolerance of it.
Media Matters has the video.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Okay, it’s official. O’reilly is gay.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:03 pmThe very next words out of Millers mouth were “I’m good with that”, BTW
October 25th, 2007 at 10:05 pmThe very next words out of Millers mouth were “I’m good with thatâ€, BTW
Good, he’s not a closetted hypocrite like O’Leilly.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:10 pmWhat does O’Reilly prefer to tolerance, the Final Solution?
O’Reilly is a despicable scumbag, yet the scary part is there are millions of people (sheeple) in this country nodding to his every word, all while they cut checks to the 700 Club.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:15 pmOh, oh. Bill O has had enough of this tolerance crap. Perhaps they’ll name a concentration camp after him.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:18 pmO’Reilly is a despicable scumbag, yet the scary part is there are millions of people (sheeple) in this country nodding to his every word, all while they cut checks to the 700 Club.
Comment by GL2814 — October 25, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
they don’t scare me. they’re all in walkers, and they can’t even find the channel-changer. O’Reilly has virtually no influence over anything important. None. His history of perversion, harassment and lies has destroyed any power he may have imagined he had at one point. TP is wasting time and bandwidth on him, but it’s entertaining, in a way, as it’s a microcosm of the whole rightwing stupidity and hyperventilating fear they all have of their own thoughts and feelings. it’s why they can only measure themselves by material possessions; they have nothing inside to be proud of.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:20 pmTolerance of something = indoctrination??? Not in my world. Why is it bad to tolerate behavior that you don’t personally participate in? Mind you, O’Reilly isn’t tolerant of much outside of his little realm so this comes as no surprise.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:20 pmAs a brief followup, just take a look at the Republican presidential field. they really should hold their debates at the Ringling Brothers Clown School in Florida. A whole stage sharing a single small, unevolved brain. Cracks me right up.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:23 pmO’Reilly admits that ‘tolerance’ of gays bothers him.
And tolerance of you and your show bothers me , O’Lielly ; shut the hell up already , you stupid , perverted old nitwit ………..
October 25th, 2007 at 10:29 pmWe can’t have tolerance. It would be intolerable.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:30 pmbill’s mind is filled with nothing but loofahs and falafels.
it’s who he is.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:30 pmO’Reilly and his ilk are to be pitied. They substitute ‘ritual defamation’ (see article by L.Wilcox, 1990), for engagement. O’Reilly, Limppaws and others on CNN/FOX have practiced that for years. Old tactics by an old war horse who has outlived his usefulness. Relevant? no. A freakin’ pain in the ass because of all the angst they generate, the hate they spew and harm they cause kids who get thrown out of their homes for fooling around. Those TV entertainers of CNN/FOX fail to see how pitiful they really are. I’m happy to tell them though.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:33 pmThe Republicans are literally fighting for the right to hate and commit hate crimes against people who they consider different. It really is a disgusting spectacle. Bigotry is not a family value.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:10 pmI agree with #1…O’Reilly just has to be in the closet!!!
October 25th, 2007 at 11:19 pmIt’s always the guys who are insecure in their manhood who. . . !
October 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pmAll BillO and his ilk have to sell is hate and fear. Take that away from them and they don’t have anything left. Of course tolerance scares him. Intolerance is his bread and butter.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:31 pmIntolerance is his bread and butter.
Comment by morcat10 — October 25, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Nailed it.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:35 pmYeah, dayum! God forbid we should have TOLERANCE!!
Tolerance just sucks.
/sarc off.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:41 pmThere you have it, friends: from the KKK to the John Birch Society to the modern Republican party, hatred of what is different.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:50 pmIt’s amazing how close the thinking of many Republicans is to Nazis of 1930’s Germany.
All you have to do is substitute the word “Jew” instead of “Gay” and “Homosexual”, and you realize that someone like O’Reilly is much closer to Adolf Hitler than he is to Martin Luther King.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:06 amTruly scary.
shrill o’leilly: bigoted sexual predator
why doesnt he get his punk-ass beat every day when he walks out his door?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:13 amwhy doesnt he get his punk-ass beat every day when he walks out his door?
Comment by neopro — October 26, 2007 @ 12:13 am
He prefers to pay for that privilege.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:21 ami’m confused, can a fictional character be gay? no, i mean it. can a fictional character actually be gay?
i’ve found this whole debate rather hard to understand. i don’t understand Rowling’s comments and i sure as heck don’t understand O’Reilly’s.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:26 amIn my thinking, a fictional character can be whatever you decide he/she will be.
What’s bizarre is the reaction of these lunatics — as if the character were actually flesh and blood. It makes them look more stupid than ever.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:33 amSigh… BillO must have the hots for Dumbledore. Too much talk about gays and Dumbledore only means that he wants to take a walk on the “wild” side.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:34 ami’m confused, can a fictional character be gay? no, i mean it. can a fictional character actually be gay?
Comment by Some Guy in Seattle — October 26, 2007 @ 12:26 am
I like the existential nature of this question….perfect for, well, some guy in Seattle.
Nowhere in the books or the movies was there ever any hint of the character being gay. You can go back now and look for it, but it wasn’t part of the character on the page.
Now the author says he is gay. It does seem weird. It never mattered to the course of the story, she didn’t invest any print to the idea in developing the character…now he is gay. His creator says so, even though he never showed any signs of having or wanting to have sex with men.
It IS pretty freakin weird.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:37 ami’m confused, can a fictional character be gay? no, i mean it. can a fictional character actually be gay?
i’ve found this whole debate rather hard to understand. i don’t understand Rowling’s comments and i sure as heck don’t understand O’Reilly’s.
Comment by Some Guy in Seattle — October 26, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Can a fictional character actually be black?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:40 amI find Rowling’s move to be brilliant. I have to admit half of my satisfaction comes from how hilarious the right wing is when it’s pissed off about gay rights. But why not teach a little tolerance? Dumbledore probably wasn’t written as a gay character at all. Rowling’s probably just tired of all the hatred directed toward gays and gay activists and decided to make a statement. Bravo!
I am less concerned with Dumbledore’s gayness than I am with the kids. If you were at private school and were magical, wouldn’t you be focused on finding interesting ways to be a kid?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:42 amDumbledore probably wasn’t written as a gay character at all. Rowling’s probably just tired of all the hatred directed toward gays and gay activists and decided to make a statement. Bravo!
Comment by bob lahblah — October 26, 2007 @ 12:40 am
That I think is the thing that actually bugs me the most, though. He wasn’t gay before she was a millionaire – if she cared so much about tolerance, why DIDN’T she write him as gay in the first place? Would a old, wise, gay man in charge of hundreds of adolescents made folks a bit queasy? Would they have bought the books, sponsored the movies?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:44 am.
If I have to tolerate Bill O’Liely, then he can tolerate me, too.
.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:46 amThat I think is the thing that actually bugs me the most, though. He wasn’t gay before she was a millionaire – if she cared so much about tolerance, why DIDN’T she write him as gay in the first place? Would a old, wise, gay man in charge of hundreds of adolescents made folks a bit queasy? Would they have bought the books, sponsored the movies?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 12:44 am
You have a point. But hey, you gotta start somewhere. Tolerance doesn’t generally begin with the use of a sledgehammer.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:49 amWould a old, wise, gay man in charge of hundreds of adolescents made folks a bit queasy? Would they have bought the books, sponsored the movies?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Also, are you equating homosexuality with pedophilia?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:50 amWould a old, wise, gay man in charge of hundreds of adolescents made folks a bit queasy? Would they have bought the books, sponsored the movies?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 12:44 am
I’m not sure. Maybe you might ask a Catholic
October 26th, 2007 at 12:52 amI thought that what JK Rowling actually said was that she had considered Dumbledore to be gay when she was writing the books — which to me is different than saying he actually was gay. Not that it really makes a difference, but is this just one of those small details that is conveniently forgotten about when the press gets ahold of it and rewords it to make it sound more sensationalistic than it really is?
Another thing — isn’t this really ridiculous that people are so whacked out about a fictional character perhaps being gay and how to tell the kids about it. But, the deaths of real people — children and innocents during the conduct of war mentions scarcely a mention?
Just seems like rather oddly placed moral priorities to me.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:54 amThat I think is the thing that actually bugs me the most, though. He wasn’t gay before she was a millionaire – if she cared so much about tolerance, why DIDN’T she write him as gay in the first place? Would a old, wise, gay man in charge of hundreds of adolescents made folks a bit queasy? Would they have bought the books, sponsored the movies?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 12:44 am
You have no idea whether he was gay or not, because he lived in the imagination of the author.
How was she supposed to “write him as gay”? Was he supposed to flit around the tower with a limp wrist? Was he supposed to fret about whether the curtains matched the ghosts? Maybe make a lot of campy jokes with the students?
This is part of what Rowling was getting at: people like you live in a universe of stereotypes and never see what is really going on around you.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:57 amAlso, are you equating homosexuality with pedophilia?
Comment by bob lahblah — October 26, 2007 @ 12:50 am
No, the Catholic Priest scandal did that for me. Intellectually, it is totally invalid. However, what is the first thing that comes to mind when I mention older gay man in charge of adolescents? I didn’t even have to imply it to get you to question if I WAS implying it.
Most pedophille teachers are heterosexual.
I repeat, if Rowling really wanted to make a statement, an ethical gay man surrounded by adolescent boys would have been the perfect vehicle. Dumbledore’s retroactive gayness gives the character and the character’s creator a dodge that lessens both of them. I think Dumbledore should’ve just stayed the Dumbledore of the page.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:57 amThis is part of what Rowling was getting at: people like you live in a universe of stereotypes and never see what is really going on around you.
Comment by gummitch — October 26, 2007 @ 12:57 am
“People like you” followed by “live in a world of stereotypes” capped off by “never see what is really going on around you”?????
So Mitch, you stereotype me because I am conservative, then tell me I am blind because I stereotype people????
Y’know why gay people are gay, Mitch? They are born that way. They have a sex urge that is only satisfied by their own sex. It feels good, so they do it.
There. Can we cut the stereotyping crap? I am sure Daryll will be along soon to spout fire and brimstone at you, but don’t tell me what I think when you have no clue.
I was trying to have a literary discussion with Bob – period.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:05 amWould a old, wise, gay man in charge of hundreds of adolescents made folks a bit queasy? Would they have bought the books, sponsored the movies?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 12:44 am
I didn’t even have to imply it to get you to question if I WAS implying it. Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 12:57 am
Actually, your wording DID imply it. That a gay man in charge of adolescents would make people queasy. It never occurred to me until you mentioned it.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:06 am#1
Okay, it’s official. O’reilly is gay.
Comment by Xbot
My thoughts exactly … he acts so bothered….a real give away.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:08 amI repeat, if Rowling really wanted to make a statement, an ethical gay man surrounded by adolescent boys would have been the perfect vehicle. Dumbledore’s retroactive gayness gives the character and the character’s creator a dodge that lessens both of them. I think Dumbledore should’ve just stayed the Dumbledore of the page.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 12:57 am
And how does one write an “ethical” gay man? How is that different than the “wise, old gay man” who makes people queasy in your previous description?
October 26th, 2007 at 1:11 amYou’re right that it would have made people—-mostly fundamentalists—uncomfortable (actually it already did just by including magic, so what’s to lose?). But how does making a rather bold statement about tolerance lessen the author and the character?
gummitch, don’t expect keltoi to have a logical response to your inquiry, he’s not the brightest bulb – heck – I’d venture there’s no light on at all!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 26, 2007 @ 1:03 am
How are you any different from the trolls you rail against when you write
sh*t like that? What does it add? Why do you constantly insult the intelligence of people you disagree with? And in this case, we DON’T disagree, and yet you are still all about the cheap shot.
I think you will feel better about yourself if you are less negative. Honest.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:12 amAnd how does one write an “ethical†gay man? How is that different than the “wise, old gay man†who makes people queasy in your previous description?
You’re right that it would have made people—-mostly fundamentalists—uncomfortable (actually it already did just by including magic, so what’s to lose?). But how does making a rather bold statement about tolerance lessen the author and the character?
Comment by bob lahblah — October 26, 2007 @ 1:11 am
I didn’t read the books, my son read them all twice, when he found out what Rowling had said he shrugged. He is not a homophobe because I am not, and honestly I don’t care about Harry Potter. My whole entire point was Rowlings artistic honesty. She’ll spend more money tomorrow than I’ll make in this lifetime, so my opinion doesn’t matter much, but let me ask you this. If years after To Kill a Mockingbird had become the classic it is and Harper Lee had mentioned that Atticus Finch was secretly a member of the KKK, would that have been artistically honest.
AND I AM NOT EQUATING HOMOSEXUALITY WITH MEMBERSHIP IN THE KKK!
What I am saying is, is it valid for authors to redefine characters that have had a huge impact on the culture AFTER the characters have been defined on the page?
Her character, freedom of speech and all that, but from a literary standpoint it makes me wonder.
Ah, Hell, she probably just wanted to sell more books….
October 26th, 2007 at 1:20 amComments 49-51 = Strike Two, RHF.
Night all, I’ll leave it to the hyper-intelligent to call each other idiots and dumb assess. What a joke.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:26 amComment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 1:20 am
And I think your son’s reaction is the reaction of virtually all kids over this. Who cares?
October 26th, 2007 at 1:28 amRowling’s comments will not affect the integrity of the books. They are an aside that will probably be forgotten someday (probably someday soon). If Harper Lee had done what you said, it would not take away from a beautiful work of art. It would have been a ridiculous comment that would also be a forgotten footnote. The works live on.
No offense, but I think you’re taking this too seriously. Why can’t someone just make a statement about tolerance? I mean, does it make you uncomfortable? I don’t see this as a “literary” issue in the least.
No offense, but I think you’re taking this too seriously. Why can’t someone just make a statement about tolerance? I mean, does it make you uncomfortable? I don’t see this as a “literary†issue in the least.
Comment by bob lahblah — October 26, 2007 @ 1:28 am
Honest? I was bored and thought it might be a topic that could be approached without all the knives drawn like they usually are around here over important matters of policy. Just a bit of light fluff. It doesn’t make me in the least bit uncomfortable, I could give a damn what people do in their bedrooms.
Sadly, I was wrong, we have to hate and insult each other over everthing if we are not in lockstep agreement over politics. And I am not talking about you, Bob, obviously.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:35 amComment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 1:35 am
Fair enough.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:38 amWow… you could just insert just about any ethnicity in the place of the word “gay” and it would still sound offensive.
And that’s the thing, tolerence is such a bad thing.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:01 amIn the first place, there is no “indoctrination” of people into homosexuality. And in the second, if there were, it wouldn’t *&^%$#@ work. People do not become gay because of a character in a book they read, or a teacher they have, or a friend they have, or listening to a Mellissa Etheridge song or watching Ellen Degeneres or Rosie. That is not what makes people homosexual.
I had strong heterosexual urges from about the age of 9 and I am sure as hell it was not due to a teacher or a character in a book. It is the same for homosexuals.
The world has too much intolerance. The problem is not it has too much tolerance. Bill O’ would fit right in with the Islamic fanatics he is supposed to hate.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:22 amO’REILLY reminds me of Kathy bates in MISERY with this one.
i guess he’s gonna (metaphorically) chain Rowling to the bed until he EX-GAYS her fictional character.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:46 ami’ve found this whole debate rather hard to understand. i don’t understand Rowling’s comments and i sure as heck don’t understand O’Reilly’s.
Comment by Some Guy in Seattle — October 26, 2007 @ 12:26 am
I’m with you Guy. Why declare that there is a gay character in a fiction work only after it has been published and sold? I have only one explanation for it: It’s a calculated way for a writer who wants his/her work published and wants to keep controversy to a minimum while sales of his/her CHILDREN’S book is going great.
After he/she becomes a millionaire, there’s no longer a monetary risk in declaring that one of his/her characters is gay. In fact, it will help to sell future works.
O’Reilly is a totally irrelevant character at this point. His only recourse is to protest what’s already been written, published and sold.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:21 amIt appears to me that O’Reilly’s openness bothers quite of a few of ya’ll out there. Nothing wrong with being a homosexual. Nothing right or wrong with liking them either. By the same token, there is nothing right or wrong about some folks hating them. That’s their prerogative. Take it or leave it – we do not live in a socialist society.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:50 amHere’s how I see it:
1. JK Rowling is a single mother.
2. She wrote a book that included a gay character.
3. She has sold millions more books than O’Reilly.
QED, O’Reilly won’t let go of this bone.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:01 amIt appears to me that O’Reilly’s openness bothers quite of a few of ya’ll out there. Nothing wrong with being a homosexual. Nothing right or wrong with liking them either. By the same token, there is nothing right or wrong about some folks hating them. That’s their prerogative. Take it or leave it – we do not live in a socialist society.
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 7:50 am
wow! early in the day for your meth hit, hits.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:01 amLefty Patriot,
Maybe I don’t even exist, except in your imaginations?
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 8:03 amwe do not live in a socialist society.
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 7:50 am
Why is Socialism for the rich not a Socialist society?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:09 amIt appears to me that O’Reilly’s openness bothers quite of a few of ya’ll out there. Nothing wrong with being a homosexual. Nothing right or wrong with liking them either. By the same token, there is nothing right or wrong about some folks hating them. That’s their prerogative. Take it or leave it – we do not live in a socialist society.
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 7:50 am
People don’t choose to be homosexual. People do choose to hate them.
See the difference?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:09 amforeyes,
“Socialism for the rich” is a contradictory phrase
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 8:12 amMuch ado about nothing. It’s just the reichwingnuts attempting to drum up enthusiasm from their base with some red meat: GOP Holy Trinity = GOD, GAYS, AND GUNS.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:12 amDumb_fox,
Agree: “People don’t choose to be homosexual”
Disagree: “People do choose to hate them”
A lot of intelligent folks are deluded by what they believe is “free will”. Have you stopped to consider that the very arguments you may make to articulate why someone became a homosexual could also support why some people choose to hate them?
Hits
October 26th, 2007 at 8:14 amforeyes,
“Socialism for the rich†is a contradictory phrase
Hits
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 8:12 am
Yes, I agree with you. Tax breaks for the 1 percent of Americans who own most of the wealth is Capitalism for the rich. Are you satisfied?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:31 amOH, the horror!
How dare somebody teach tolerance and parity. Those values are so unamerican — but only to the ilk like Bill O’Reilly.
Can he not really see the outright foolishness of the drivel he spouts? How anybody tunes in and actually listens to his message of hate and intolerance is really frightening. I just couldn’t force myself to be that miserable. What an empty life that must be.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:32 amhits: By the same token, there is nothing right or wrong about some folks hating them. That’s their prerogative.
There’s nothing wrong with hating people just because they’re different? I think it’s morally wrong to hate people for factors that are beyond their control. Do you think it’s right if people hate someone just because of their race? Do you think we should live in a society that tolerates intolerance and discrimination?
Have you stopped to consider that the very arguments you may make to articulate why someone became a homosexual could also support why some people choose to hate them?
You’re saying that people have the “right” to hate others, because they’re born with certain characteristics that make them bigots? That’s why we need to promote the message of tolerance, like J.K. Rowling does. People don’t HAVE to be bigots. Many people who were brought up in the racist apartheid culture of the American South have learned to overcome their irrational hatred. There’s hope even for homophobes like O’Reilly and yourself.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:37 amHave you stopped to consider that the very arguments you may make to articulate why someone became a homosexual could also support why some people choose to hate them?
Hits
now youy are justifying my first comment. meth this early is scrambling what’s left of your brain. “Choose” to hate? what kind of sick bastard chooses to hate? A rightwing nutbag, that’s what kind. someone with no moral center, like O’Reilly. that’s why I choose to dismiss his rants as thoughtless and unAmerican. Because he represents the very worst of America.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:45 amNowhere in the books or the movies was there ever any hint of the character being gay. You can go back now and look for it, but it wasn’t part of the character on the page.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 26, 2007 @ 12:37 am
Why is it that you think a gay person needs to scream “GAY!” at all times? A person’s sexual orientation is only one facet of what makes a person. Do you expect heterosexual characters (particularly in children’s books) to be overt with their sexual orientation? Especially when it’s irrelevant to the story line?
As I recall, Dumbledore’s sexual orientation wasn’t referred to at all, be he gay or straight. And neither was the sexual orientation of most characters.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:45 amI’m always amused by the stance on anti-gay “c”hristians who basically say : “I should be able to practice my religion, and persecute homosexuals, because I “chose” my religion and homosexuals “chose” their lifestyle.”
If homosexuality is something that people can “chose”, exactly like their religion, then they BOTH should be protected!
What’s more fair than that?!?!?
By the way, I didn’t “chose” to be gay. I did, however, “chose” to be honest with family, co-workers, and friends about my sexuality.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:46 amTCDon I am reluctant to have “sexual preference†added to the list of protected classifications under Federal Employemnt laws as that would likely open up the flood gates to more frivolous lawsuits.
So… it’s not a “frivolous lawsuit” if someone fires you because you’re Black, but it’s a “frivolous lawsuit” if someone fires you because you’re gay?
Discrimination on any basis related to factors that have nothing to do with job performance at all, is wrong. Would you say it’s okay to fire someone because they’re Methodist, or left-handed, or red-haired, or Norwegian, or because they like to play the piano?
What’s “frivolous” is firing people for frivolous reasons. That includes who they happen to be attracted to, or with whom they choose to have sex, or what behavior they engage in, in the privacy of their bedroom.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:47 amIt seems that every time someone is fired now days, they claim it was because of their race, religion, national origin, handicap, gender, etc…., anything but their job performance.
You mean the State Prosecutors who were charged with following what the Constitution says it is their obligation? How unamerican can you be, I wonder?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:51 amI am reluctant to have “sexual preference†added to the list of protected classifications under Federal Employemnt laws as that would likely open up the flood gates to more frivolous lawsuits.
Comment by TCDon — October 26, 2007 @ 8:36 am
I agree that “frivolous” lawsuits are a waste of time and money for everyone. But what makes a lawsuit frivolous? If I had been fired because of my sexual orientation, I would be just as angry as if I had been fired because of my race, my religion, my gender, or my age. The lawsuit I would file wouldn’t be frivolous to me — it would be extremely important.
As far as sexual orientation being a protected classification, it is only because gay people HAVE been discriminated against. Just as there has been discrimination for being Jewish, black, foreign, female, and middle-aged.
Why do you think that eye color isn’t a protected classification? It’s because there isn’t widespread discrimination against people because they have blue eyes. If there was, you can bet that blue-eyed people would want to have this protection. Gay people have suffered from discrimination and they want it to stop. If they hadn’t been, this wouldn’t even be a topic for discussion.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:53 amIt appears to me that O’Reilly’s openness bothers quite of a few of ya’ll out there. Nothing wrong with being a homosexual. Nothing right or wrong with liking them either. By the same token, there is nothing right or wrong about some folks hating them. That’s their prerogative. Take it or leave it – we do not live in a socialist society.
Comment by hits — October 26, 2007 @ 7:50 am
Sorry to have to disagree with you, hits, but there is much that is wrong about what you said here. You did get some things right. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual. And I agree that there is nothing wrong with liking gay people. (If you enjoy movies and music, you’d better learn to like gay people; we wouldn’t have a lot of movies or music without them). But there is something wrong with hating them and that is that there is no rational basis for that hatred. Every male that I know that hates gay people does so out of a fear of being raped by them, despite the fact that it is almost certainly never going to happen to them. They also hold many ignorant views about gay people, as they often paint all gay people with one brush, usually thinking of them as all being the more flamboyant, expressive ones you see marching in parades, or as “limp-wristed lispers”. I blame organized religion for this. It was organized religion that decided that a union of two people of the same gender could serve no useful purpose because it couldn’t produce new members of that religion, as if that were the only acceptable reason for two people who love each other to decide to share their lives together. My wife and I made a choice to never have children, even before we married, yet no one would deny our right to be married, our right to pass on our estates to each other, to allow each other to make medical decisions on the other’s behalf should the need arise, nor even the right to raise one of our siblings’ children should something have happened to them despite the fact that we are childless ourselves. Anti-homosexuality arises out of ignorance, not out of any established facts suggesting harm to society. The only thing “harmful” about homosexuality is that it proves its enemies wrong every day, and they cannot tolerate being proven wrong. (And BTW, having the right to hate someone has nothing to do with whether or not we are a “socialist society”. I’m not sure you understand what the term means.)
October 26th, 2007 at 8:54 amIn order to establish standing to sue, he alleged that he was gay, and that has now become an issue to prove or disprove in the trial.
Comment by TCDon — October 26, 2007 @ 8:59 am
and that shows the weakness of your argument. the county had no right or cause for that prohibition, thus has to bear the costs of the suit, which, if they weren’t ignorant homophobes, would have been unnecessary.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:02 amO’Reilly protests too much. Dumbledore’s sexual orientation had nothing to do with the story lines in any of the books (unless I missed something). Therefore, Rowling’s revelation of his sexual orientation has about as much impact on the stories as if she revealed that Dumbledore preferred chunky style to creamy style peanut butter. Who cares?
But O’Reilly sees a bigger, more sinister issue here. He’s afraid that if children see that a likeable character is gay, there’s a possibility that they could get the idea that real gay people could be likeable and worthwhile, too. Oh, the horror of that!
Bigots hate anything that threatens their comfort zone. O’Reilly continues to prove he’s a member of that group.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:05 amFrankly, tolerance of Bill O’Reilly really bothers me.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:07 am#85 – “I did say I have an open mind to this issue.” Comment by TCDon — October 26, 2007 @ 8:59 am
I fully understand your perception. I, personally, have been turned down for a job, and a friend that worked for the company told me later the reason was because I was gay.
While it kind of ticked me off, I didn’t even consider suing. If they didn’t want me because of my sexual orientation, that’s their failing as human beings. I wouldn’t want to work for such pathetic people that would let sexual orientation be a deciding factor!
I would rather someone be honest about hating me for who I am, than lie and pretend to like me for who I am not.
How about if people were fired for being a Democrat or a Republican? How would you feel if that were a decding factor in being hired or fired?
October 26th, 2007 at 9:07 amwho gives a s**t!!!!…..so billlo is concerned about the sexual orientation of a fictional character in a book about wizards – so what!!!….i agree with miller – if it is a good read,then who gives a f**K?? – it is a book about wizards and majic and if the kids want to read a book then that has to be a good thing!!!!…at least they are reading…..i’m sure that all of the young people queing up to buy and read this book aren’t concerned about sex – they just want to read!!!!!!…..am i wrong????
October 26th, 2007 at 9:07 amEvery male that I know that hates gay people does so out of a fear of being raped by them, despite the fact that it is almost certainly never going to happen to them.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 26, 2007 @ 8:54 am
O’Reilly is afraid he is going to be raped by a gay man? Geez — what gay man (or straight woman, for that matter) would want him?
October 26th, 2007 at 9:08 amIt seems that every time someone is fired now days, they claim it was because of their race, religion, national origin, handicap, gender, etc….
Comment by TCDon — October 26, 2007 @ 8:36 am
Really Don? Care to actually provide some numbers to back up your statement?
October 26th, 2007 at 9:09 amDisagree: “People do choose to hate themâ€
Okay, people choose to follow a particular set of beliefs that lead them to hate homosexuals.
Have you stopped to consider that the very arguments you may make to articulate why someone became a homosexual could also support why some people choose to hate them?
Strawman. There’s no observable factual basis to hate gays, it is all down to a particular reading of religious text.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:10 am92 — I think you’re on to something. O’Reilly hates gays because none of them have hit on him. When he was in high school, he probably hated cheerleaders because none of them would go on a date with him.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:10 amGay people have suffered from discrimination and they want it to stop. If they hadn’t been, this wouldn’t even be a topic for discussion.
Comment by missmolly — October 26, 2007 @ 8:53 am
missmolly: Anyone who has “suffered from discrimination” is going to understand.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:11 amComment by TCDon — October 26, 2007 @ 8:59 am
I respect you for being open-minded about homosexuality, and for admitting that you are unlike many of your conservative-minded brethren on the issue. However, I do not believe that jaspervava mis-stated your point at all. You said that adding sexual preference to the list of protected clasifications “would likely open up the flood gates to more frivolous lawsuits.” So what you said (even if it wasn’t what you meant) is that you think that filing a lawsuit for being fired for being gay was “frivolous”, and that is the point jaspervava was making.
On the other hand, the Florida lawsuit story you brought up is irrelevant to the issue of protecting gays in the workplace. That lawsuit had nothing to do with employer discrimination, which is what jaspervava was talking about. Your story is more about a public-funds-spending issue, and I am surprised that the petitioner would have to be gay to have to sue to say that prohibiting his tax dollars to be managed this way was wrong. Gay or not, he is a taxpayer (I assume), and that should be standing enough. He will likely lose in my judgment not because he should, but because if we had the right to tell the government what they could and could not spend our money on, our troops would be home from Iraq this afternoon.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:13 amhe concept of “standing†has nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case, it has to do with who has a right to bring the case.
Comment by TCDon — October 26, 2007 @ 9:09 am
The fact that the case wasn’t dismissed out of hand shows that you are off-base here. Nice try.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:13 am#97 – TCDon, from what I understand, there is no legal impediment for firing or hiring people based solely on their political beliefs.
I just think it would bring the whole argument about who should be protected if this were to happen. How would you feel if the US Government fired all Democrats that worked for the Federal Government when Pres. Bush was (s)elected in 2000? What if Pres. Clinton had fired all Republicans in 1992 when he was elected?
My personal belief: a person’s ability to do the job to the satisfaction of the company should be the only criteria for hiring/firing. Sexual orientation should not be considered any more than their hair color, their political belifs, or if they like jazz over punk rock. ;-)
Of course, I would be unwilling to have a convicted pedophile in a job with easy access to children, but this is covered in most state and federal laws.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:19 amYeah? Well tolerance of Bill O’Reilly bothers me.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:38 amIt’s amazing how close the thinking of many Republicans is to Nazis of 1930’s Germany.
All you have to do is substitute the word “Jew†instead of “Gay†and “Homosexualâ€, and you realize that someone like O’Reilly is much closer to Adolf Hitler than he is to Martin Luther King.
Truly scary.
Comment by drago — October 26, 2007 @ 12:06 am
Yeah, refusing to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality is almost equal to trying to wipe out a race of people. Conservatives say homosexuality is immoral but they really mean sub-human. They are Nazis. ;)
October 26th, 2007 at 9:48 amwhy doesnt he get his punk-ass beat every day when he walks out his door?
Comment by neopro — October 26, 2007 @ 12:13 am
Who would do it? ;)
October 26th, 2007 at 9:51 amLefty (100). Do you really think that frivolous lawsuits “get dismissed out of hand?†That shows how misinformed you are as to the workings of our legal system.
Comment by TCDon — October 26, 2007 @ 9:42 am
yawn.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:03 amYeah, refusing to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality is almost equal to trying to wipe out a race of people. Conservatives say homosexuality is immoral but they really mean sub-human. They are Nazis. ;)
Comment by upright left — October 26, 2007 @ 9:48 am
very good, you’re starting to understand the vicious, neandertal mindset of the hatemongers on the right. you think you’re being cute and ironic, but you have hit the nail on the head.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:04 amPeople uncomfortable with gays are uncomfortable with themselves! It is no coincidence most are self loathing GOP folks like OFalafel!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 26, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Makes you feel better to believe that, doesn’t it, bud? Sorry, but most conservatives feel quite good about themselves and just don’t want immorality given legitimacy. ;)
October 26th, 2007 at 10:12 amyou think you’re being cute and ironic, but you have hit the nail on the head.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 26, 2007 @ 10:04 am
By showing the foolishness of comparing opposition to an immoral lifestyle with genocide? Yeah, I thought that was good, too. ;)
October 26th, 2007 at 10:19 amSorry, but most conservatives feel quite good about themselves and just don’t want immorality given legitimacy. ;)
Comment by upright left — October 26, 2007 @ 10:12 am
I might agree with this if I saw evidence that it were true. I guess immorality is in the eye of the condemner. Conservatives do not want homosexuality to be given “legitimacy” because they claim it is immoral, but since they give legitimacy to throwing away the votes of thousands of African-Americans, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans and other non-white voters in federal elections; to giving no-bid, cost-plus contracts to companies who deliberately place their headquarters offshore to avoid paying their fair share of US taxes, and who feed our fighting men and women contaminated food and water; to giving public tax money to private charities with a religious agenda in violation of the spirit of separation of church and state, if not the letter of it; and to privatizing basic human services to companies who operate on a for-maximum-profit basis rather than a most-citizens-served-for-their-own-money basis, it’s hard to understand just what they define “morality” to be.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:23 amComment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 26, 2007 @ 10:23 am
I know many conservatives, but not one who agrees with the things you mentioned except maybe giving govt grants to religious organizations for social service projects. That is hardly immoral and not prohibited by the constitution. But, that is a different matter. If you want to assign all the other things to all conservatives, then can we also say all homosexuals are flamboyant, promiscuous queens and all liberals are lazy, promiscuous, pot smoking goof offs who just want to live off the govt? Perhaps you should only blame criminal behavior on those who are guilty of it. If you want to get into political scandals, their are plenty on both sides of the spectrum. ;)
October 26th, 2007 at 10:42 amI know many conservatives, but not one who agrees with the things you mentioned
But they support the people who do those things, don’t they? I mean, did you or the conservatives you know vote for Bush?
except maybe giving govt grants to religious organizations for social service projects. That is hardly immoral and not prohibited by the constitution.
It is if it’s only Christian groups who get the federal money (or a disproportional amount of it).
If you want to assign all the other things to all conservatives
I only did so because you were speaking for most conservatives when you said what you did about immorality.
then can we also say all homosexuals are flamboyant, promiscuous queens and all liberals are lazy, promiscuous, pot smoking goof offs who just want to live off the govt?
Except that none of that is true about “most liberals”. I stand by what I said about the belief system of conservatives. I stand by it because the very philosophy of conservatism often leads to the kind of criminal behavior I described. If the conservatives you know don’t agree with the things I mentioned, then why do they support conservatives in government? Why are they conservative, for that matter? “Libertarian” might be a more appropriate description of them. But thanks for playing our game. I must go elsewhere for now.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:54 amYou seem not to want to apply the same standards to libs and conservatives. If conservatives are responsible for the wrongs committed by Republicans for whom we voted, libs have to be responsible for the wrongs committed by Dems for whom they voted. Are libs who voted for Clinton responsibile for his adulterous affair, his lying about it, and the damage it did to a young woman’s life? Or is Bill Clinton responsible for it?
We could follow that line scandal by scandal. Admittedly, there are currently more Republican scandals. Since they have been the majority in Washington for years, it would be surprising if the Dems had more scandals.
——-
“Except that none of that is true about “most liberals.”
Just as what you cited is untrue of the beliefs of most conservatives.
——
“I stand by what I said about the belief system of conservatives. I stand by it because the very philosophy of conservatism often leads to the kind of criminal behavior I described. If the conservatives you know don’t agree with the things I mentioned, then why do they support conservatives in government? Why are they conservative, for that matter? “Libertarian†might be a more appropriate description of them. But thanks for playing our game. I must go elsewhere for now.”
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 26, 2007 @ 10:54
The “philosophy of conservatism” doesn’t lead to criminal behavior. People choosing greed over morality leads to criminal behavior. People are responsibile for their actions. Obviously, there are similarities between consevatives and libertarians. Libertarians, however, generally don’t oppose policies that equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual relationships. Perhaps all of your views are consistent with the liberal viewpoint. But there is a large part of the population whose views place them in the middle of the political spectrum. We seldom find candidates who agree with all of our views, so we vote for the ones closest to our views or with whom we agree on the issues we consider most important. Then, of course, there are the times when we are faced with a choice between a poor candidate and an unacceptable candidate. Hence, the presidency of George Bush.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:33 amI didn’t read all the comments – but IMO, Dumbledore being gay can be explained in one word, one with which actors are infinitely familiar:
SUBTEXT
For you non-actors, subtext is what is not explicitly written into the script, but is the underlying motivation behind the character’s thoughts, feelings and actions. It is the lens through with the character views the world.
Subtext is what creates characters who are fully realized and exquisitely life-like.
And for idiot rightwingers to get themselves all frothed up over something so irrelevant… good grief. Get a grip, you intolerant morons.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:50 am#113 – “Then, of course, there are the times when we are faced with a choice between a poor candidate and an unacceptable candidate. Hence, the presidency of George Bush.” Comment by upright left — October 26, 2007 @ 11:33 am
It’s interesting that the unacceptable candidate, then-Gov. Bush, was selected over the poor candidate, then-VPres. Gore.
One wonder what the Supreme Court was thinking when they stopped the counting of the votes. Or were they thinking? Hmmm. . . .
October 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pmThen, of course, there are the times when we are faced with a choice between a poor candidate and an unacceptable candidate. Hence, the presidency of George Bush.
Comment by upright left — October 26, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Of course, there is all that pesky evidence the GOOPers deliberely manipulated the outcome of both elections… ;-)!!!!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pmIt’s interesting that the unacceptable candidate, then-Gov. Bush, was selected over the poor candidate, then-VPres. Gore.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — October 26, 2007 @ 12:08
Ordinarily, that would be a little too much of a stretch, bud, but I make allowances for soldiers. I’ll let that one go. ;)
October 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm#117 – “Ordinarily, that would be a little too much of a stretch, bud, but I make allowances for soldiers. I’ll let that one go. ;)” Comment by upright left — October 26, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
The truth will set you free! but first it’s gonna tick you off! ;-)
Actually, I just couldn’t resist the manner in which you worded the statement, and twist it around. All in good fun!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:28 pm#116 – “Of course, there is all that pesky evidence the GOOPers deliberely manipulated the outcome of both elections… ;-)!!!!” Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 26, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Evidence, shmevidence! Evidence don’t mean crap when the courts are biased in favor of the neo-cons!
Didn’t Ohio recently say that the votes from 2004, from the districts in which 120% of the registered voters actually voted, ended up being “accidentally” destoyed when he shelf on which they were kept “mysteriously” collapsed? How. . . . convenient!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:31 pmEvidence, shmevidence! Evidence don’t mean crap when the courts are biased in favor of the neo-cons!
Didn’t Ohio recently say that the votes from 2004, from the districts in which 120% of the registered voters actually voted, ended up being “accidentally†destoyed when he shelf on which they were kept “mysteriously†collapsed? How. . . . convenient!
Comment by Democrat Soldier — October 26, 2007 @ 12:31
I went back and checked Wayne’s original question directed to me. Sure enough, the question asked was why conservatives voted for Bush. You and stupid seem to have gone off on a tangent.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pmO’Reilly can’t even get the Seinfeld quote right…
October 26th, 2007 at 1:00 pmI love upright left coming here preaching morality — yes, I have been in a monogamous relationship for seven years, we both work, pay our taxes, and are good neighbors. In fact, we keep a very nice home, yard and are generous to our friends. We are not pedophiles, drunks, kleptomaniacs or any of the other host of evils that the right has branded us. In fact, my partner spent two years in Seminary, but, to his credit, knew he could never be faithful to the vows he was making to the Catholic Church, and left the church (sadly) forever.
Yes, how immoral of us. What a “gay lifestyle” we lead. While you are preaching morality over something you know nothing about, please do cite what Jesus Christ said about homosexuality. NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. So take your piety and shove it up your ignorant a$$. I am sick of the likes of you purporting to be so superior that you believe it your right to make decisions about morality.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pmChrist also said nothing about rape or about spousal abuse. However, there’s no reason to think he endorsed these practices.
In contrast, he does remark in Matthew that the Creator intended that sexual expression be between a man and a woman in a marriage. Christ paraphrases Genesis when he makes the statement about the Creator’s intent.
I believe this passage in Genesis should settle almost all questions of sexual morality as far as Christians are concerned. If you don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it’s irrelevant whether or not you think I’m accurately presenting this information from the Bible.
In addition, Christ raised the standard of morality to ultra-heights when he remarks that adultery is not only about physical relationships but also about attitude. This is the famous Jimmy Carter “Playboy†interview, “…committed lust in my heart,†remark.
He also remarked that hating someone was the same as murder.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:12 pmI believe rape and spousal abuse are not immutable characteristics — that is, those are matters of choice. But thanks again for equating me with a rapist and a wife beater.
Again, where did Christ condemn homosexuality??? Cannot find it, can you. Thanks for playing anyway — you can collect your year’s supply of Rice A Roni as a consolation prize.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:22 pmComment by NoMoreBush — October 26, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Please show me where I’ve “purported to be superior” to anyone. On the contrary, I acknowledge that I’m a sinner just like everyone else on this earth. My temptations just don’t happen to be the same as yours. I’m sure your friend has pointed out to you the Biblical references that prohibit homosexuality and that Jesus said that a man and a woman should be joined together in marriage. And while this is where the cries of “cafeteria Christian” usually start, I’m sure you also know that there are laws that were given in the Old Testament that we no longer follow because they were meant for the Jews or because they are no longer needed since Jesus became the only sacrifice needed. That doesn’t mean we no longer follow the moral prohibitions as opposed to the cultural ones. Do you think that everything we could possilby do that Jesus didn’t specifically mention is ok, or just homosexuality. As for how you live your life, that is between you and God. It makes no difference to me. I do care when it comes to my government saying that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality and should be treated the same. ;)
October 26th, 2007 at 2:38 pmIf you search amazon.com with rape evolution, you’ll find a number of titles along the lines of this one: A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion
So, someone thinks that rapes my have an immutable component.
bitblt did not equate NoMoreBush with a rapist and a wife beater. NoMoreBush did that.
bitblt stays aware that not all posters on the INet are as they present themselves.
bitblt does equate adultery with homosexuality. Both practices are sexual sins and both are detrimental to their practitioners. Neither practice, according to Christ, is what the Creator intended.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pmTake a gander at your post in #108 — you are making a morality judgment there that is not yours to make. I am quite familiar with all the quaint little right wing sites that pick and choose al a carte what to believe in the Bible. Yes, yes, in Matthew Jesus did preach about “Mosaic law” which I believe includes the Levitican Code, much, much, much of which clearly is not followed today. Otherwise, I believe we should hear much more about perhaps instituting a constitutional ban on divorce — but, of course, that would the majority of the pious right wing water carriers and politicians. And, of course, there would be many more stonings of our neighbors than currently exists.
I equally care that my government not do injustice to very well-established principles of equality, which form the foundations of our government, by discrimminating against entire classes of its taxpaying cititzens based on ANY religious principles,particularly those espoused in the grand comic book known as the Bible.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pmbitblt apparently does not understand the meaning of immutable characteristics. Perhaps you should pray about it and ask your Creator for more knowledge.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:58 pmTake a gander at your post in #108 — you are making a morality judgment there that is not yours to make. Comment by NoMoreBush — October 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Like I said, I don’t care how you live your life, I just don’t want the govt to sanction or reward it. ;)
October 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pmOh, what happened to immorality part or are we now justified to view it as implied — you obviously do care or otherwise you would not care what the gov. does.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:40 pmDon’t believe an anonymous poster on the INet making a judgement is violating any particular “right.â€
#108 is simply exercising a little discernment – the church word we use to mean , “know the difference between right and wrong.â€
The simple fact is that not every way of living is equal, not every religion is equal, not every lifestyle is equal, and not every thing that’s legal should be done.
Jesus quotes Genesis which would be before any laws were given. The Matthew quote that > is straight out of Genesis. The one flesh qualifier – that is, marriage – is probably older than religion.
God’s grace and the relationship of Christians to the Old Testament are recurrent themes in the New Testament. However, if you want to understand this better – especially why Christians don’t do animal sacrifices – you’ll have to read some of the books written by the Apostle Paul. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and made a point of saying that Gentiles didn’t have to become Jews to become Christians and
that Christ was the perfect sacrifice – why Christians don’t do animal sacrifice.
I recommend the book of Romans in which the Apostle Paul tells Christians about God’s grace. In addition, the other epistles of Paul cover issues of Gentiles becoming part of what was at the time a sect of Judaism – Christianity.
If the U.S. were a Christian nation, then I’d support constitutional amendments along the lines of “A marriage is between a man and a woman,†and “A marriage will last as long as both the man and woman live.â€
But, since the U.S. is not a Christian nation but a nation for Christian people I’d just as happily support a consensus agreement among the people. A consensus agreement that the ideal relationship for sexual expression is one man one woman forever in a marriage. It is the best relationship to protect the physical, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing of the man, the woman, and the offspring of that marriage. It is the best relationship to support the interest of the government – stable homes.
In short a consensus agreement that there should be no more single mothers and no more abandoned children.
I’d still support a, “A marriage is between a man and a woman,†amendment.
You might notice the on TP “good advice†is usually one of the missing ingredients. Everyone on TP seems to know what’s wrong with everything, but they seems short on suggestions as to how to make it better.
I don’t want my government to force Christians to accept evil in the name of equality, in the name of tolerance, or in the name of diversity.
I suspect this would be the end of the U.S. It wouldn’t be worth preserving.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:45 pmEnd of the US — you have no credibility. Again, Jesus Christ had nothing to say about homosexuality. But I am sure he is relieved to have the likes of you in all your superiority making judgments about things and people you perceive as evil. As I recall, Christ despised the little trait you are displaying.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:56 pmOh, and you are so clearly wrong that the US is a nation for Christian people. How arrogant you are. I am sure that would be an astonishing surprise to the Founding Fathers who, I dunno, decided that little freedom of religion clause was a necessity to ensure that the nation not be Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else. Wow, open the Constitution — it would do you good. That is the document this country is governed by not the grand comic book of them all — the Bible.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:01 pmChrist also said nothing about rape or about spousal abuse. However, there’s no reason to think he endorsed these practices.
In contrast, he does remark in Matthew that the Creator intended that sexual expression be between a man and a woman in a marriage. Christ paraphrases Genesis when he makes the statement about the Creator’s intent.
I believe this passage in Genesis should settle almost all questions of sexual morality as far as Christians are concerned. If you don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it’s irrelevant whether or not you think I’m accurately presenting this information from the Bible.
Comment by bitblt — October 26, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Actually, there’s NO evidence that Yeshua said any such thing. The Gospel of Matthew is presumed by scholars to have been written no earlier than 50 YEARS after the widely-accepted date of the Crucifixion.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:05 pmAs for the Genesis “Creator’s intent” notion, I’d point out to you that intent is an INVENTION. (Reread the first two chapters of Genesis and explain how there are two DIFFERING accounts of the creation of Man. It’s in the second account–not in the first–that brings up the “man cleaves to his wife” malarkey.) This particular “intent” is no different than the little stories parents make up about “thunder is the sound of God bowling”. Whoever wrote down what became Genesis 2 wrote that story to act as an explanation for why most people pair up in the man/woman fashion. (I’d note that Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages made up a reason for the discrepancy between Gen 1 and Gen 2 and called it Lilith and made her the reason for all the evils in the world because she wouldn’t submit to being Adam’s “inferior”–some of the more inventive tales suggested that Lilith’s most egregious offense was her insistence on being “on top” during sex. None of this, of course, appears in the Bible itself, but it remains popular in theological circles.) Also, Gen 2 seems to have been first written down during the period of the Babylonian captivity while Gen 1’s origin seems to be much older.
I’d also point out that nearly all the “sexual morality” aspect of Christianity didn’t originate with Yeshus, but rather with Paul and later Church theologians (most especially, Augustine). The early Christian communities were explicitly told that celibacy was the proper behavior for Christians, but for THOSE WHO COULDN’T CONTROL THEIR BASER URGES, then they should confine those urges to within the state of marriage. Of course, who wrote these “rules”? Why, it was Paul, of course.
And, one other note of major importance: The whole of the New Testament as we know it today wasn’t compiled until nearly three hundred years after the generally accepted date of the Crucifixion. During that compilation process, literally hundreds of tales (considered by many Christian communities as being of great importance) were rejected out of hand–one of the “reasons” was the contradictory nature of many of the stories, yet there are contradictions within the finished product anyway. Also, of those texts that became canon, many are believed to have been made official only from altered or edited versions.
For those out there who say there is no harm done by hating gays—was there any harm done by the Nazis when they hated gays?
For those who say sexual orientation is/can be a choice—-did you choose your sexual orientation? If you say you did, you really don’t know much about yourself!
You sound just like the fanatical Islamics you claim to hate! They agree with you.
A homosexual teacher doesn’t do any more harm to their students than a heterosexual one.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pmBut, since the U.S. is not a Christian nation but a nation for Christian people I’d just as happily support a consensus agreement among the people. A consensus agreement that the ideal relationship for sexual expression is one man one woman forever in a marriage. It is the best relationship to protect the physical, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing of the man, the woman, and the offspring of that marriage. It is the best relationship to support the interest of the government – stable homes.
In short a consensus agreement that there should be no more single mothers and no more abandoned children.
I’d still support a, “A marriage is between a man and a woman,†amendment.
Comment by bitblt — October 26, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Well, how wonderfully heterosexist and religiously intolerant of you. When did the US become a “nation for Christian people”, you arrogant piece of tripe? I certainly do not see any evidence for that notion in our Declaration of Independence nor in our Constitution.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pmAs for your heterosexist attitude on marriage, are you willing to put an amendment in the Constitution banning divorce? Without that, how can there be a marriage of “forever”? Are you willing to have the Constitution amended to barring infertile couples from marrying? Without that, there can be no “offspring” for the marriage.
I put forth the proposition that the government has no legitimate interest in creating “stable homes”. If you’re going to go down that route, why is a loving same-sex relationship outside the concept of a “stable home”? If a husband and wife decide that, in the interests of maintaining a “stable home”, they want to bring in another person (whether on occasion or as a permanent deal), does the government have a “right” to say “that’s not stable”? Why is a one-man/one-woman marriage somehow more “stable” than a one-man/ten-women or one-woman/five men marriage? (Certainly in the latter case, the woman will be more than financially well-cared for.) Even in the Bible, the one-man/one-woman “model” is ignored in the generations after Adam and Eve. Hell, the man who is revered by the three major Western religions had sexual relations outside his “marriage” and fathered a son by that woman (the story of Abraham and Hagar, if you need a mental boost). The patriarch Jacob not only had to work 7 years to earn the right to marry, he got the wrong wife; he then worked another 7 years to earn the right to marry his real choice. On top of that, he fathered (legitimate) children by two other women. Then, there’s the great King, David, and his relationships. (Don’t forget his real relationship with Jonathan–whom he loved more than any woman. Take that however you wish.) And, of course, the wise Solomon–who had a reputed 1000 wiveS and concubines.
The simple reality is that the one-man/one-woman deal was an invention of the Church for ROYALTY and inheritance issues, not the common folk. (Read up on the history of “common-law” marriage. Under that status, any man who shared a residence with a woman was treated as “married” under the law, regardless of how the Church saw it.) The Quran allows Muslim men to marry up to four wives with the provision that he treats them all equally. The Medieval Christian Church allowed for priests and bishops to marry (the Eastern Orthodox also allows for priests to marry, while a bishop can only be married if he was in that state before his elevation to bishop) and even allowed for same-sex relationships to have a status on par with marriage.
Comment by JosephW — October 26, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Comment by JosephW — October 26, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Thank you, JosephW, for your educational posts on the hypocrisy of organized religion. I look forward to the day when humans on this planet will finally accept and embrace the very fact that there are no deities watching over us and controlling our fates. There are only us humans, and we need to start doing a better job of taking care of ourselves or we will soon face extinction caused by our own foolishness.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:24 pmThere will always be bigots. There will always be those who hate blacks, jews, asians, hispanics, gays, middle-easterners, fill in any race and any sexual preference and there will be someone who hates people of that race, or sexual preference. And nothing will change those people’s minds. Nothing. You can argue with them for hours, point things out, illustrate why they’re wrong, and they will insist they are right just to get in your face with their bigotry. So, do we fight these people, do we pity them, or do we just ignore them and move on? Eventually, this bigotry becomes marginalized through the passage of time, but it will never go away. Sadly, bigots like O’Reilly and his ilk are here to stay.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:55 pmoooo, scary gay people. oooo, tolerance is so dangerous.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:06 amDoes anyone else find it interesting that in the actual book, not as an afterthought, there are obvious allusions to dumbledeores brother having sex with a goat, and noone said anything about that? So evidently its ok for people to participate in beastiality and makes for good humor but when Rowling mentions that a charater had always been in her mind a homosexual people go nuts. And for the record if bill oreily knows what the “gay agenda” is i would love to get a copy because as far as i knew my only asignment as a member of the gay comunity was to be fabulous.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:18 am