(CNN) - Bill O'Reilly, the conservative Fox News host, believes same-sex marriage advocates have a more convincing argument than opponents, who do nothing but rehash scripture to make their point.
"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals," O'Reilly said Tuesday on Fox. "That's where the compelling argument is. 'We're Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.' That's a compelling argument, and to deny that, you have got to have a very strong argument on the other side. The argument on the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the Bible."
Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN
O'Reilly has previously stated he takes a libertarian view on the issue, and repeated Tuesday night that it's a decision that should be left up to the states. "I support civil unions. I always have. The gay marriage thing, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or another."
Both sides of the debate clashed this week in Washington as the Supreme Court hears challenges to two cases dealing with the issue.
O'Reilly has been less critical of so-called Bible thumpers in the past. In a May 2009 column on his website, he again argued the matter should be decided by states but also said he understands that "most Americans believe heterosexual marriage deserves a special place in our society."
"Our Judeo-Christian traditions, which have made the United States the most prosperous and just society the world has ever known, speak to a family built around a responsible mother and a father-certainly the optimum when it comes to raising children," he wrote.
But, he argued, people who feel strongly about traditional marriage "have allowed themselves to be intimidated" and have refused to stand up for what they believe in.
"When was the last time you saw a Catholic cardinal or archbishop speak against gay marriage on television? I know–I've invited some of them. They all turned me down," he wrote.
His comments Tuesday weren't the first time he's taken on his own party. Last week, O'Reilly sharply criticized Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann for making "trivial attacks" and unsubstantiated claims of President Barack Obama's so-called perks in the White House.
To know who Bill O'Riley is you got to watch " The last Supper" :)
Marriage for LGBT is just fine with me since I think marriage is for insecure people who just want to be tied to someone who will take care of them. I take care of my family because I want to and not because I have to. I have the freedom to decide what I do with my life without fear of being financially and emotionally devastated by a divorce. If someone I care about has a problem that I can help with, I do so but every night I shut my bedroom door and sleep without arguments and recriminations and regret. I do my best and if that doesn't solve the problem, you are on your own. Marriage would not allow me to do that.
Guest: "Have your thing, leave ours alone!"
It was never your thing. It was always everybody's thing. Unless, of course, you can argue that the right for two people of the same gender to get married infringes on your right to get married. Does it? If so, explain how.
Um, Newsflash: O'Reilly IS NOT A Republican. The Republicans are NOT "his party". He seems to be a right-leaning centrist and an Independent. Fact-check your story – to not do so discredits your article – which otherwise has many thuths to it.
It ain't right to stand by and let people live in Sin.
These monsters must be stopped!
@Guest – yeah, Christians hold marriage so sacred they cheat on their spouses. They hold their religious values so closely that they have relations before marriage. They swear before their God to love and honor, but took out the word "obey" because "times have changed." The church no longer excomunicates Catholics who divorce because "times have changed". The Church itself has changed as times have changed. So tell me how many marriages you know to hold to the sacred vows they made before God. Anyone you know been divorced? Cheated on?
The bible is stupid.
Gee.....the biggest bigots on this board are those who bash religion and anyone who is not for gay marriage. Irony at its best
Dutch/Bad Newz, VA: If it's only about "labeling" then let's just label gay unions as "marriages" and be done with it. Of course, for the the real opponents of gay marriage, it's NOT about labeling. It's about Biblical Law, sometimes veiled thinly in concern for children.
Flop away, Bill.
...but but but Bill, you once said that Jews have the right grab land from the Palestinians because it states and written in the bible 10,000 years ago that God gave the land to the Jews....hmmmm
beware of O'Riely's tack in bashing Bachman and Bible thumpers. He wants to win the next election so he is showing his right wingers on Fox how to get some "cred" from the independants when he starts bashing anything Obama at the next election cycle.
Who cares who marries who. Its not like you have to participate in it.
The origins of marriage originally had nothing to do with religion or even love for that matter. Quit being a bunch of bigots and just let people live. We have bigger fish to fry out there.
Unbelievable!! Isn't this the same man who cries that Xmas is under attack. What a flip-floper. Pretty soon he will be under attack by the T-party for not being more like the conservative dopes that they are.
He to will burn in HELL
That is just what i said. Some of us are intelligent. We did vote Obama back into office, It's called going forward not backwards. And how did we go from equal rights for everyone to guns?? Sounds like someone may be a little Paranoid???
Our Washington elite is also at the Fox news network...and not with the avergare American..."they" all want to run the country without us...
Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. As Just. Sotomayer said yesterday where does the definition end? If marriage is redefinded then incest, beastiality, polygomy all apply. She goes further to say it cannot be redefined just for another certain group. Where does it end?
The problem is not giving gay couples full access to benefits. I don't agree with that either.
OH CNN could u please lie some more? O'Reilly was not blasting "bible thumpers" He was merely pointing out that the other side's argument is not convinincing by simply using the bible.
The next step is for Bill to finally come out of the closet. Just wait until he annouces that on Fox News!
If the Republican Party embraces Sen Rand Paul's libertarian conservatism, where does this leave social evangelical conservatives? Will intra-party warfare break out between moderate Republicans, libertarian Republicans, social evangelical conservatives, and Tea Partiers.
I guess O'Reilly senses which way the prevailing winds are blowing and doesn't want to be caught leaning the wrong way.
. If this nation’s Supreme Court rules in favor of allowing Man & Man marriage and Woman & woman marriage, aren’t these justices stepping on our religious beliefs? What are the repercussions of such an action in our country? Will this ruling force all of our churches to open their doors to this kind of union? Will this force all churches to change their sermons and prayers to accommodate this U.S. Supreme Court ruling? Is the big court trying to take away our religious freedom? Our faith in God’s word, as found in our Bibles is enough. That is our argument.
Fox suddenly wanting to sound like they have always supported gay marriage. But I did laugh really hard the other night when they had a guy who tried defending Prop 8 and told the viewers who evil gay people are.. the only problem was that anyone who was listening to him and seeing his mannerisms knew he was as gay as gay could be. Yes, even gay people will say what they are told if they are paid enough.
I'm not sure everyone understands the real issues here. It keeps getting talked around rather than about. First off, we have something called the separation of church and state. Folks have to realize that recognizing marriage as a state is very different than recognizing it in a particular religion. I think sometimes Christians that don't believe in that (and they have every right NOT to believe in it) get caught up in their belief rather than understanding that there are many beliefs in the church that the state doesn't follow. Whatever the state decides is considered marriage is up to the state. And, whatever the church decides what is considered marriage is up to the church. They are two different things. Granted, this country was founded on Christian principles, but hey, that never stopped this righteous country from crapping all over those principles anyways. No offense.