Bill O'Reilly's charged gay marriage debate with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham drew a strong reaction from TheBlaze audience, particularly over O'Reilly's contention that same-sex marriage opponents often "thump the Bible" to make their point.
Here's what some of you had to say about it:
Speaking of schoolmarm vocabulary lessons, you'd think he'd understand that the institution of marriage is first and foremost a religious rite, not a civil right.
The problem here seems to be the words being used. If you want to call it marriage, I won't go along because marriage is a union between one man and one woman. If you want to call it a civil union (AKA "C'mon, Myrtle, let's go on down to yonder courthouse and get us hitched."), then I'm fine with it. A courthouse union and a religious marriage are very much the same, with the major exception being that marriage involves God, where civil unions don't.
Since God is clear on the issue of homosexuality (and, by extension, same sex marriage), I think it's particularly rancid to change the definition to include a group of people acting in opposition to His Will.
If you want to call them civil unions, then we have a different situation altogether. As Civil Unions are a construct of a secular government, I'm fine with them. As I said, civil rights and religious rites are different things.
If this were the case, frankly, the Federal government has no seat at the table, beyond ensuring that the views of the legislature of one state (Maryland, for example) can't force their gay marriage law upon the express will of the people of states like Florida, whose people rejected gay marriage by a 60+ percent supermajority. In other words, the Federal government's role is to ensure federalism.
I AM an opponent of same-sex marriage. If anyone wants to call me a Bible thumper, go ahead. I DO NOT CARE. My Bible IS the basis for my ENTIRE argument against homosexuality.......period. Now DO NOT be mistaken, being against homosexuality and against homosexuals are two VERY different things. I am not against homosexuals just because of that.?P.S. If two men or two women want to live together, that's their choice but find some other title to call it. Sorry, the term "marriage" has been taken and the definition was established as between one man and one woman a long long time before ANY ONE OF US ever walked this planet. Quit trying to change it or hijack it. Or maybe I should say give it back.
Comment: I agree with Rush Limbaugh on the subject of gay marriage, which is it's going to be legalized throughout the country regardless if we like it or not. It doesn't mean to stop defending the institution of marriage as man and wife, but just know that the LGBT, patterned after other civil rights movements, will get it legalized nationwide. You can try using the Bible as evidence but a lot of people think it's a fairytale. We can only win with a secular debate. There's already studies that "prove" that a child does better in life when raised by same-sex couples. There are scientific studies that prove otherwise and I would use that information, studies linked to homosexual behavior, instead of a Bible verse.
I agree with the sentiment, anyways. Our culture is not a place where "God said so" or "the Bible says so" is a compelling reason to do or refrain from anything.
If we are going to convince anyone that our lifestyle is one that breeds peace and prosperity, we need to be able to defend it through example and discourse that shows it in terms they agree are valid.
Even though the Bible is authoritative and true, using it as evidence to someone one who disputes its authority is not even a little bit compelling to them.
I'm disappointed in Laura Ingraham. I expect her to say "First and foremost, I defend marriage by the definition of marriage, as defined by GOD. Every other argument is just a supporting argument."
But, Bill (the rino) is right, when he says the Biblical argument is a losing one. The world has decided to ignore God. The world will have to answer to God on that score.
Calling a Christian a "Bible thumper" has been used as a derogatory term for eons. It speaks volumes about the depth of B.O.'s beliefs. The Bible is the ONLY basis for moral absolutes.
Same-sex "marriage" is about overthrowing cultural norms that have for centuries set traditional marriage apart from other household forms on the basis of tradition, legal precedent, and social-science evidence.
Marriage has always been properly and appropriately discriminatory, as when it denies a man the right to marry his mother, daughter, sister, a child, someone already married or someone of the same gender.
It is erroneous to assert that homosexuals are being denied the right to enter the marriage union when the immovable foundations of natural law dictate that marriage is by definition a heterosexual institution - a union between one man and one woman - because men and women are the only categories of human beings that can bring forth the next generation.
Limiting marriage to one man and one woman cannot be construed to be discriminatory. It is a necessary condition for marriage. The church's obligation to protect the sanctity of marriage is based upon creation, nature, human physiology, the authority of Scripture, the protection of family and children, and safeguarding the ability to build strong, sustainable societies based on good moral values.
I'm highly disappointed in some of the Blaze readers commenting here.
Bill O is correct. You can't make political policy based on religious beliefs!!! Those of you who think you can ARE the PROGRESSIVES, not Bill O. Legislating morality is the kind of thinking that brought us prohibition. There are Christian sects who believe divorce (ALL DIVORCE) is wrong, or instrumental music in worship is wrong, or women teaching men. Should we outlaw it all? What about modest clothing and who gets to decide that?
While I believe all of you to be sincere in your religious beliefs, you are the people who lost this debate for us. The real debate is whether government has any business in marriage whatsoever. By allowing government to deal favors, tax and otherwise, based on marital status, we've created this problem because gays (rightly so) should be allowed the same rights as the rest of us. That's where we should have been attacking the government. Instead, all of you on the religious right sucked this debate into "Bible Thumping" which is a loser argument. Now Big Government will win because all of you have been marginalized and the real debate around the role of Government in marriage has been lost. Bill O has always stated he's against gay marriage, but that you can't create law based on "the Bible says...". I'd have thought with all the libertarians here I wouldn't have found this comment pool devolving into a modern day Progressive prohibition mob.