(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.
I agree, it is a States Right issue. Let the States decide, either by vote or by legislative decisions.
The problem is California did that, and the same-sex proponents cried discrimination.
My problem is not with the same-sex marriage, it's two-fold, first with their position that not allowing it is discrimination, and second, that they are content that if the definition of marriage is changed to include them, then the discrimination caused by the definition of marriage seems to disappear.
IF as they claim, the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory, then who is suffering from this an how? The who is everyone who is not married – because the how is that people who are married receive status and benefits from the government that people who are not married cannot receive, unless they become married.
So the truth is that the same-sex marriage proponents have no problem with marital status causing discrimination, as long as they are included in those who are allowed to marry. Their position is to move the line where their perceived discrimination is practiced, and they are okay with that same discrimination – becoming the very bigots they are now in a court battle against.
Back to the issue. IF the definition of marriage is discriminatory as they believe, then the solution needs to be one that actually ends the discrimination – which would first allow anyone to marry ... traditionally, same-sex, consensual plural, etc. AND to eliminate any and all status and benefits provided by the government – so that people who decided they did not want to be married would not be discriminated against also.
If the fight, is only to be "included", then discrimination is not resolved. Using the civil rights battles as the example, their position is one that says, yes, blacks not longer have to rise at the back of the bus ... but all Latinos and Asians now do have to ride back there. Either leave it up to the States to decide, or if this truly is a discrimination issue, then truly end the discrimination.
None of this addresses the point.
Whether or not one believes in The Bible, it is NOT the document from which our government and our laws are derived. That is called THE CONSTITUTION.
If your church doesn't believe in gay marriage, that's fine. Your church doesn't have to marry gay people.
But in the eyes of the government, religious beliefs have no weight. The Constitution requires equal protection under the law, and that's really all there is to it.
Everything else is just noise.
The trouble with "Bible Thumpers" is they are completely unaware that their argument is useless on anyone who is not exactly like them. They fail to understand that such argument are NOT going to work on people who disagree with them and they will instead need to appeal to "logic".
What Mr. O'Reilly was figured out is that these people don't have any "logic".
if the bible wasnt there then america would be so different, because the bible was the bottom foundation of the very great god-fearing country today that we call the United States Of America. So i think liberal fox news should listen to rush limbaugh who gets behind the actual true news .
Go Bill Go Bill. Bible thumpers need to hush. I don't go around running my mouth about my beliefs, so why do the thumpers think it's ok?
CNN looking up to Fox.. never thought this day will come.
This is a new low for CNN. or maybe just a middle.
Mr O'Reilly please read the book What is marriage ? Man and Woman: A defense. Robert P George
there are many compelling arguments for tradional conjugal marriage. this book presents a reasoned defense without retort to biblical doctrine. Not that religious arguments shouldn't be considered but that reasoning is compatible with traditional arguments.
Mary Name, we might be more open to your intreptation of the Bible, IF we believed it was actually the "word of God".
Some of us realize that what today's mortal men believe about mortal men's verbal legends, which were compiled by mortal men centuries later, and declared by mortal man to be the "word of God", has absolutely no relevance, to the declared equality rights of mortal men, as written by mortal men and declared to be The Constitution of the United States.
Some of us believe it is a book of parables that represents both the good and bad, as found in us all.
But most of all, we do not believe it is a measure by which mortal men should judge others.
We believe that right is exclusive to God.
Hey O Reilly, Are you gay all of the sudden? Whats wrong with you? Personally, I have nothing against gays, although I find same sex marriage revolting.
Despite being a Liberal (God forbid!), or should I more precisely say a Radical Leftist, I've always appreciated O'Reilly's willingness to stand outside of the right wing box. I often don't agree with what he believes, but he does exercise discretion, common sense and good judgment when it comes to controversial issues. It's too bad that the snake handlers and speakers in tongue out there are hell bent on taking it upon themselves to demand that others live by their literal interpretation of cryptic scripture. Oh well, what else is new? Time to turn on the 700 club and attentively listen to Pat Robertson's homespun senile meanderings!
The author should do some basic research. O'Reilly is a registered independent, not a Republican. He was a registered Republican at one point and many would say once a Republican always one. That would be the same as saying the President was against same sex marriage so always will be.
You have to take EVERYTHING the bible says then, and there are som e pretty outrageous/outdated statements in there.
O'Reilly is a registered Independent.
Everyone has the same rights. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa. That's about as equal as it gets.
I am shocked Mr. O'reilly, really, you can call it want you want, but what is right is right! I will take a stand, I oppose it it is wrong, you can believe what you want! your entitled to, but mark this day down in history! Because this is just the beginning of things to come, next thing you know something like child pornography will be excepted as right! Just wait its a matter of time, that is if we are all around to see that come to pass. Could quote scripture all day, and the argument will continue to rage! Clearly we are all on one side or another! Right is right and wrong is wrong! it's clearly as simple as that! man I would love to get in the arena and debate you on this issue! We have become a nation so divided! on every issue! I would love to know exactly what you believe!
Mr O'reilly is the norm for most people today..He says "we quote scripture in our defence" Thats right.... its our Bible Mr O'reilly..... its the book of truth we live by! " In the end times good will be called evill and evill good" There's some more bible quotes and truth for you..
Since we ALL are created beings, I'd say the Word of the One who created us, is the absolute and FINAL authority over all of HIS creation.
Hey, what's a "thumper" anyway? Ain't no one got time for that. Culture rot will take about 30-40 years. It ain't about the Bible, it's about biology, 2 in a bed makes 3.
'We're Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.'
Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah – polygamists... pedophiles .... not a compelling argument at all, actually.
Wow, Bill-O is finally right about something, amazing.
I would like to comment to this. How is this for the ones that like to pick on the people they call Bible freaks. Marriage is a religious practice and we are suppose to separate religion from state. Marriage is preformed by a man or woman of God, (preacher, father, rabbi, etc. If the United States would like to separate like they said has to be done, taking the ten commandments out of the courts, then maybe they should not say who can and can't be married. Let the Preacher, Father, Rabbi, etc. make the choice. These are the men and women of God that are suppose to teach the word of God and if they go against what God has commanded they will have to answer to that. If the government would like to have these unions then they need to be just that unions, NOT marriage. So the point I am making is separate religion from government and leave marriage alone and get your own union that is a gift from the government not a gift from God.
I fail to see what is wrong with allowing same sex marriage. Let's share the misery hetorosexuals, enjoy with out spouses. the agony and the joy that comes with watching your child, succed in life. The alomony, custody fights and the all around marital discord that comes with marital union. The only union where netiher member should ever be allowed to strike.
robertholt: thanks for proving Bill's point that you think quoting an old book serves as a substitute for a compelling argument.
More Christianity bashing by the far left media.
"most Americans believe heterosexual marriage deserves a special place in our society." Uhh, why??