O'Reilly, still not relaxing "on all this gay stuff," took issue with IL high school seniors voting lesbians "Cutest Couple"
On the November 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, reporting on the recent crowning of two girls as "Cutest Couple" during an annual senior yearbook poll at Waukegan High School in Illinois, host Bill O'Reilly said to his guest, Dr. Laura Berman, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry and obstetrics/gynecology at Northwestern University, "[T]he kids voted this couple the cutest couple to tweak the adults, Doctor, to cause trouble, to make an issue of the yearbook." O'Reilly later claimed: "A lot of parents say, 'Listen, we don't want to normalize homosexuality in a public way in an academic setting, high school, among minors.' " When Berman, who had previously said -- "homosexuality is becoming, thankfully, more normalized, because this is the time in adolescence that kids are exploring their sexuality and, in fact, starting to identify what their sexual orientation is" -- asked, "Why?" O'Reilly replied, "Well, for a number of reasons. One: social. It's much more difficult to be a homosexual than a heterosexual in America. Two: religious. There are people who believe that that kind of a lifestyle ... is against their religion. And they pass that on to their children. ... Three: an exposition of sexuality in a minor -- and that's very important -- in a minor situation is inappropriate in an academic setting. All of those things are valid, Doctor."
As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), O'Reilly has made numerous controversial statements on homosexuality. Yet, during the August 15 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated, "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff," in reference to a viewer's email about comments he had made in response to criticism Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) received for an answer he gave at a presidential forum to the question of whether homosexuality is a choice.
During the November 7 segment, O'Reilly also asserted: "I think private behavior belongs in private settings. ... I don't think it belongs in the high school yearbook." Berman then asked: "But you'd be OK with the cutest couple, heterosexual couple, though?" O'Reilly replied: "I would be, because that is the norm of society. See, it's the same gay-marriage thing. You have a 6 percent option here. Homosexuals, according to research, are 6 percent of the population." Berman later asked: "But since African-Americans are a minority, would you have a problem with an African-American heterosexual couple as the cutest couple?" O'Reilly responded, "No ... because race is not conduct. There's a difference between who you are and what you do," later adding: "[Y]ou don't allow sexuality to intrude in your high school yearbook."
O'Reilly also claimed that "[t]his is a lesbian couple that was voted in there ... because they're a lesbian couple," further saying, "Look, Doctor, there's no reason why [the couple] Brandy [Johnson] and Lupe [Silva] had to declare themselves anything other than friends. They didn't have to do that. They chose to do that." He later asserted: "[L]ook, I don't want any kid to be bullied. I wrote Kids are Americans Too for gay kids who are getting bullied. They should read the book, know their rights. I don't want anything like that to happen."
Finally, responding to O'Reilly's claim that "[s]omebody else would say you're encouraging that kind of experimentation ... when you don't have to do it," Berman stated: "You can't encourage it. ... It happens anyway." O'Reilly then replied: "All right, Doctor, that's the old argument. Let's legalize drugs because it happens anyway. There's got to be boundaries." When Berman countered, "Drugs are not the same. Homosexuality is not illegal," O'Reilly concluded: "But it -- you know what I'm talking about. There's got to be boundaries."
From the November 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Illinois students at Weekaugan [sic: Waukegan] High School voted seniors Brandy Johnson and Lupe Silva the "cutest couple." So the self-proclaimed lesbians get their picture in the yearbook under the "cute" banner. At first, school officials tried to ban the category, but finally relented despite a parental objection.
Joining us now from Chicago with reaction, Dr. Laura Berman, who teaches psychiatry at Northwestern University.
Now, I'm saying this with all due respect to these two 17-year-old girls. I don't want to sound mean, condescending, or all that. I want to give you the thing.
I believe, based upon our investigation of this Weekaugan High School deal -- and the picture, and put up the picture again of these students -- that the kids voted this couple the cutest couple to tweak the adults, Doctor, to cause trouble, to make an issue of the yearbook.
Now, this happens. As a former high school teacher, I can tell you, every school, every semester. That's what's in play here, in my opinion. What do you say?
BERMAN: You know -- yes, kids like to tweak the adults and like to be provocative, and all of that is true. I don't think that this is necessarily completely about them trying to tweak the adults and trying to be provocative. I think this is about -- and we've seen this in other high schools, as well -- it's starting to become at least a small trend, if not a large one, that homosexuality is becoming, thankfully, more normalized, because this is the time in adolescence that kids are exploring their sexuality and, in fact, starting to identify what their sexual orientation is.
O'REILLY: Now, you realize that you said thankfully, that, I don't know, 50, 60 percent of the country is going to be angry with you for saying that. And here's why.
[laughter]
O'REILLY: Don't laugh. You got to respect their point of view.
BERMAN: I know. I do, I do.
O'REILLY: Look, as a medical doctor and a psychiatrist --
BERMAN: I'm laughing at you saying I'm going to be in trouble.
O'REILLY: -- you have to respect their point of view because it is a valid point of view -- and let me tell you what the point of view is.
BERMAN: Let's see. What is the point of view?
O'REILLY: All right.
BERMAN: I'll tell you if it's valid.
O'REILLY: High school kids experiment. They experiment all over the place.
BERMAN: Sure.
O'REILLY: High school kids, a lot of them are rebellious. They have a chip on their shoulder. They'll do things -- as I said, I think this is one of the examples -- just to get a reaction, just to rebel.
BERMAN: Sure.
O'REILLY: A lot of parents say, "Listen, we don't want to normalize homosexuality in a public way in an academic setting, high school, among minors. We don't think that reflects" --
BERMAN: Why?
O'REILLY: -- "how we feel about it." Well, for a number of reasons. One: social. It's much more difficult to be a homosexual than a heterosexual in America. Two: religious. There are people who believe that that kind of a lifestyle --
BERMAN: Sure.
O'REILLY: -- is against their religion, and they pass that on to their children.
BERMAN: Sure.
O'REILLY: Three: an exposition of sexuality in a minor -- and that's very important -- in a minor situation is inappropriate in an academic setting. All of those things are valid, Doctor, and they shouldn't be condescended to.
BERMAN: Sure. But we're not talking -- you're -- all of those things may be valid in certain populations, but we're not -- where you're getting stuck is assuming that validating or acknowledging homosexuality as a reality is somehow going to make homosexuality more likely to happen.
And what we do know is that homosexual teens are four times more likely to be seriously bullied, two times more likely than heterosexual kids to be significantly involved in drugs and alcohol and abuse drugs and alcohol, and six times more likely than heterosexual teens to have suicidal attempts.
And so, it's a huge at-risk population. Yes, there is experimentation, absolutely, but it's also very true that many teens are becoming very clear that they are seriously attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex. And they have nowhere to turn.
O'REILLY: Well, I think --
BERMAN: They have no support systems.
O'REILLY: Look, I've been very consistent on this since my first book was written. I think private behavior belongs in private settings.
BERMAN: Right.
O'REILLY: I don't think it belongs in the high school yearbook.
BERMAN: But you'd be OK with the cutest couple, heterosexual couple, though?
O'REILLY: I would be, because that is the norm of society. See, it's the same gay-marriage thing. You have a 6 percent option here. Homosexuals, according to research, are 6 percent of the population. And, if you're basing --
BERMAN: But since minority --
O'REILLY: What?
BERMAN: But since African-Americans are a minority, would you have a problem with an African-American heterosexual couple as the cutest couple?
O'REILLY: No, because -- because race is not conduct. There's a difference between who you are and what you do. And that is another key --
BERMAN: So, you're judging homosexuality as poor conduct.
O'REILLY: Not judging -- I'm not judging anybody at anything. I'm telling you that there's a legitimate point of view that number one, you don't allow sexuality to intrude in your high school yearbook, because they're minors.
BERMAN: Right. This isn't about sexuality.
O'REILLY: Sure it is.
BERMAN: This is just a couple.
O'REILLY: This is a lesbian couple that was voted in there --
BERMAN: But they're not --
O'REILLY: -- because they're a lesbian couple.
BERMAN: But they're not flaunting their sexuality.
O'REILLY: How do you know?
BERMAN: They're just in love.
O'REILLY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
BERMAN: In the picture, they're not flaunting their sexuality.
O'REILLY: How do you know they're not? You don't know that.
BERMAN: They're not flaunting their sexuality any more or any less than a heterosexual couple their age might.
O'REILLY: Look, Doctor, there's no reason why Brandy and Lupe had to declare themselves anything other than friends. They didn't have to do that. They chose to do that.
BERMAN: If they're in love -- but they have the same right to do that as any heterosexual couple does.
O'REILLY: It's not a matter -- it's a matter of appropriateness. That's what it's a matter of. And see, look --
BERMAN: But you're passing -- see where you're stuck is, you're passing judgment.
O'REILLY: You're dismissing all -- look, I'm not -- look, I don't want any kid to be bullied. I wrote Kids are Americans Too for gay kids who are getting bullied. They should read the book, know their rights. I don't want anything like that to happen.
BERMAN: Right.
O'REILLY: But you're dismissing a very legitimate point. This is inappropriate. You do not define yourself in a high school yearbook --
BERMAN: Only if you judge homosexuality as wrong.
O'REILLY: -- in a sexual way. Period. You don't do it.
BERMAN: And it's not wrong. These kids need support. And they need to know that it's OK to be who they are.
O'REILLY: Well, let them go to a support group run by you. It doesn't need to be --
BERMAN: Here I am. Add me in the yearbook.
O'REILLY: You know, you don't have to take out posters and put them on your front lawn.
BERMAN: Because they're supporting all the other kids that are stuck and hiding, now will feel safer.
O'REILLY: That's your extrapolation. Somebody else would say you're encouraging that kind of experimentation --
BERMAN: You can't encourage it.
O'REILLY: -- when you don't have to do it.
BERMAN: It happens anyway.
O'REILLY: All right, Doctor, that's the old argument. Let's legalize drugs because it happens anyway. There's got to be boundaries.
BERMAN: Drugs are not the same. Homosexuality is not illegal.
O'REILLY: But it -- you know what I'm talking about.
BERMAN: And it shouldn't be illegal.
O'REILLY: All right, always great to talk with you, by the way. Very good debate.
BERMAN: You too.
Wow...just wow. she was right, he was wrong, what can you say? Bill'O needs to go ahead and jump the shark, if he hasn't already
The Doc ripped him a new one. Who knew she'd expose him as the smarmy bigot and hypocrite that he is? He thought she'd be a "soft" interview.
Ooops, Bill, put her on the "never again" list of cowards who won't face hard criticism, you know, those guys you won't face again??
Boy, the right wing christians are soooo tolerant, aren't they? Apparently gays should never be seen or heard, shouldn't be allowed to make equal wages, just relegated to McDonalds as some sort of punishment on earth for their choices. Funny, didn't God say "Vengance is mine" and "judge not lest ye be judged"? Doesn't God's word trump anything written in the bible that is not directly out of the mouth of God?
No wonder Bill O is losing viewers every day.....
Bill, do you like to be seen as a neanderthal by your viewers? Then stop inviting guests that are way to smart for you.
I'd suggest 12 year old kids...... nevermind, they're to smart for you too.
Just keep inviting Dennis Miller and Geraldo and that so-called 'body language' expert on your show (she's just another pretty face with few brains to go with it), that way, you can kinda sorta look smart.....
Any bets as to BillO being in the closet himself?
Any bets as to BillO being in the closet himself?
I'm sure he has orgies with other closeted right-wingers, such as Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and Tucker Carlson.....
OMG. I just threw up a little bit in my mouth. That is the worst orgy I have ever heard of.
How about throwing John Podhoretz in there as well?
How about David Horowitz too?
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:
I just wanted to say that I'm very tolerant of women who feel that they need to explore their own sexuality. As a very open minded conservative, let me just state for the record that I have absolutely no problem with "lipstick" lesbians!
I'm sure that any of them that read your post were just scared straight. I'm going to have to call this one for the gay-fixing rightys.
That settles it.
You figured it out HBL.
JuTru is definitely the Colonel.
Up 'til now, he's been laying off the broad comedy and using satire and irony in his brilliantly written and poorly spelled, Samuel Clemens, like posts.
I do seem to remember that Roy's homophobia didn't include "lipstick lesbians" only gay men and Manish Girls.
Welcome back Roy.
Hi W-King.
There's another laye to this stinky onion. The assertions of manliness vis-a-vis unsolicited tales of late night action and penchant for porn, were a staple of Billybob/Roger/Max/Brutus.
Justytroothy recently has thrown in some "as a friend of the homosexual community" intros to gay bashing, which are thematically similar to Billybob's "all of my good liberal friends" disclaimers to his erratic posts.
Could there be just one or two of these working full time? Or could it be, as some posters have suggested, a robot that synthesizes talking points into comments here?The technology is getting pretty amazing.
they might have a problem with you though.
Justice, what the hell is your point when you post this garbage?
His point is he jacks off to lesbian porn.
To each his own.
Snoopy, I believe it was also in reference to O'Reilly's alleged coercion to get two girls to make out with each other while he watched.
"Next on 'The Factor': Repugnant Secular Humanist Pinhead Scum High School Votes Lebian Pair 'Cutest Couple'. Exclusive pictures right after this! ; ) "
"Sorry, it's 'Lesbian'. I'm still chewing my dinner Falafel. You won't want to miss this!"
wow snoopy dont hold back say what u really mean
I honestly can't believe I'm about to write this.
Hey guys, let's be fair and give credit where it's due.
I haven't agreed with a single this guy's written so far, and I can't say that this post is exactly a gleaming bastion of tolerance, but this may be (by far) the most intelligent thing he's ever said here. Take away the word "lipstick" and he's actually written something that I might have posted.
---------------------------------------------------
Now, that neign said, let me ask you something Justice (in your language, BTW, not mine) - but why would be intolerant of who some butch, bull-dike lesbo chooses to be sexual with? I assume you wouldn't be interested (sexually) in a woman like that anyway, so why would you care? Why are you only tolernt of "lipstick" lesbians? What business is it of yours what some woman, who you wouldn't like anyway, chooses to be intimate with?
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:
I just wanted to say that I'm very tolerant of women who feel that they need to explore their own sexuality.
But for himself, I'm sure JusticeTroll must prefer grade-school boys......
I think O'Reilly has sunk to a new low with this 'item'. Seriously, how can any rational human being listen to this stuff without feeling rage towards this rampant discrimination? Do these comments not make your blood curdle?
The Western world has become more and more progressive and tolerant over the centuries. Just a few decades ago, black people went through the same BS. I'm sure there were many 'moderate conservatives' back then saying things like "hey I don't mind you being black, but I don't want to see it in the school yearbook. That offends people, and that's a valid argument". Doesn't everyone see this for what it is? Medieval values and outright discrimination of the lowest form.O'Reilly is despicable for looking for stories like this and making a big deal out of them, reinforcing intolerance around the country.
Finally, about that whole religious 'argument'; if you are offended by homosexuality because of the Bible, then why aren't you offended by the fact that we don't stone our wives to death if it turns out they're not virgins? Because people pick what they wish to believe from the Bible, effectively rendering it utterly useless as a moral guide. (Of course any book that states the world is 6000 years old and that the number one rule of conduct is 'you will have no other God but me' is a sketchy moral code to begin with).
At any rate, I am really getting sick and tired of seeing this ridiculous intolerance, and I think more people should take a stance. And if you think that Bill O'Reilly has a point because "55% of Americans is offended by this" (or something to that effect, I forget his exact words) just consider the percentages of people who thought Rosa Park's didn't below on that bus seat. We evolve as a race, towards a more peaceful, respectful and tolerant society. People like O'Reilly are a big obstacle in the way of this evolution.
TB...have to correct you, no offense. The Bible does not explicitly state that the world is 6000 years old, that's what the Christian scholars have deduced. It's a minor distinction, but I think an important one to show the fact that Christian Conservatives don't actually know their Bible.
There is nothing quite so sexually charged as a heterosexual 'cute couple.' It's a thundering judgement on 'popularity' and attractiveness. Bill O is wrong, as usual. I would bet that as many students voted for the lesbian couple to break that 'prom king & Queen' tyranny, to smash that idol, as voted in favor of homosexuality.
He did say that. He said today on his radio show that the kids probably just did this to rebel and defy and test authority. Kids do this. We all did this when were teens and you cannot deny that. So, see, you do AGREE with Bill.
Listen to the WHOLE radio show on his website. You may find you agree with him more than you think.
Tell yourself whatever you need to to get through the day. The simple truth is that teenagers today may just be more accepting of homsexuality than they were when Bill-O was a teenager all those decdes ago.
The man really has an issue with Gays.
In the world of OReilly, Gays and Lesbians must stay in the closet , always. Anything else he makes an issue of.
BO is a hypocrite as always. These two young ladies didn't vote themselves cutest couple, this was done by their peers. Who's BO to decide what's appropriate anyway?
Yeah, the guy who sexually harrassed his own producer is going to tell me what's appropriate. What a pompous bafoon.
Hey Bill'o,
Did you ever think the Lesbians might just have been the cutest couple?
Do heterosexuals have to get all the awards?
Dan D.
O'Reilly replied, "Well, for a number of reasons. One: social. It's much more difficult to be a homosexual than a heterosexual in America. Two: religious. There are people who believe that that kind of a lifestyle ... is against their religion. And they pass that on to their children. ... Three: an exposition of sexuality in a minor -- and that's very important -- in a minor situation is inappropriate in an academic setting. All of those things are valid, Doctor."
O'Reilly really is the worst debater. He's saying that these guys shouldn't be allowed to be voted "Cutest couple" because... well, because some people don't like it. That's the extent of his argument - and it's circular, in that he's saying "It's much more difficult to be a homosexual than a heterosexual in America."... which is BECAUSE of those like him!
Really, how is this man holding a job?
FAWLTY:
Thanks, saved me a post. I particularly wanted to emphasize the CIRCULAR ARGUMENT that, this thing shouldn't be done, because it is "socially inappropriate", judged by those who don't like the thing being done, and so a STIGMA is attached, so it should be avoided because this causes a SOCIAL problem.
Well, DUH! Quit hating on the gays, and that "social problem" VANISHES. See, Bill O'Reilly, the problem is YOU, it's not this couple who are "displaying" their sexuality no more and no less than any "cute" Heterosexual teenage couple --- you just get personally uncomfortable (offended? squirmy? outraged? Why? What are you picturing them DOING? 'cause in the picture, they just look like happy kids.) ... YOU get uncomfortable seeing it, and it is THAT reaction you want THEM to solve.
It ain't their problem, Bill. It's YOURS.
He pleases Roger A. and Rupert M., thats all he needs for the nonce.
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK: Sex
It's inappropriate for the "exposition of sexuality in a minor...in an academic setting." Therefore it's not ok to have a lesbian cutest couple. But it is ok to have a heterosexual cutest couple.
This is because high school romances involving heterosexual couples don't involve any sexual attraction. Only high school romances involving homosexual couples involve sexual attraction.
Heterosexual couples in high school do not engage in any sexual behavior at all. It's because of the homosexual couples that the teen pregnancy rate in the United States is the highest in the developed world. [link to en.wikipedia.org]
It's close, but I'm going to have to call this one for the straight couples not having sex in the parking lot outside high school proms everywhere.
Also, remember that when O'Reilly sees a homosexual couple, he immediately starts fantasizing about their sexual activities and how horrible it must be, just like every other homophobe.
Since both O'Reily and Lou Dobbs are Independent, how come their are not many issues they agree on? Sometimes O'Reily sounds like a conservative and not the Hagel or Pat Buchanan kind, but like hannicrap.
*slightly off topic but not totally off topic alert*
On Free Republic.com They talked about a recent bill that passed in the House that would not allow discrimination against homosexuals in the work place. Some person said, "This bill would step on MY civil liberties." And I commented on that and said, "How? It is merely allowing THEM to have civil rights and you don't have to look at these people if you don't want." And...my posting privilege is revoked.
They have also banned several Rudy Guiliani and Ron Paul posters.
Wow! On the one hand I'm very surprised, because it does seem like a pretty innocuous comment...but on the other hand I'm not.
Free Republic (and I heard some rumors about RedState doing this too?), here is a hint that you're losing out in the free marketplace of ideas: if the only way you can maintain the dominance of your point of view is by stifling dissenting voices, your ideas are rubbish.
On the other hand, if your ideas are well-grounded in fact, you should have no trouble refuting the content of dissenters, as we have shown numerous times debunking the follies of Rino Hunter, JusticeTruth, WC4ME, Computer, etc.
Note how MMFA has a stated policy that while it enforces board etiquette very strictly, no post or poster will be wittheld for their political views.
Does anyone know of any conservative site that is similarly un-censored content-wise? Wouldn't it be fun for some of the refutation experts here to give them a going-over!!
Your report on the O'Reilly-Berman exchange ended: "Finally, responding to O'Reilly's claim that '[s]omebody else would say you're encouraging that kind of experimentation ... when you don't have to do it,' Berman stated: 'You can't encourage it. ... It happens anyway.' O'Reilly then replied: 'All right, Doctor, that's the old argument. Let's legalize drugs because it happens anyway. There's got to be boundaries.'" Clearly, O'Reilly believes homosexuality is environmental, not inherent. He fully subscribes to the nurture school, not the nature. In this, he comes down on the side of the fundamentalists -- Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et al. -- who seem to believe that because the Book of Leviticus condemns homosexuality (actually, it only appears to), it must follow that a homosexual is something one does, not what one "is." In other words, gays and lesbians are made, not born, leading to the absurd reduction that homosexual behavior can be "changed." This, of course, flies in the face of an accumulating mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary, e.g., studies showing that a particular part of the hypothalamus is different in gays than straights, as well as others which indicate that hormonal secretions of the mother during the last stages of pregnancy and child birth determine gender orientation. (In all fairness, it may be likely that, as with alcoholism, both nature and nurture play roles.) But one has to keep in mind, these are the same people (O'Reilly included, as well as many of the GOP presidential candidates) who believe a supreme being created the universe in six days about 6,000 years ago; that man lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, and assorted other lunatic notions. O'Reilly's line about gay experimentation = drug use, in addition to being a non sequitur, is just downright ludicrous, but he never gives a guest a chance to point out his fallacies. He "crowds out" meaningful debate, which is an old Sean Hannity trick. What is decidedly insidious about O'Reilly (and it is part and parcel of Tucker Carlson's b.s., too) is that they feign sympathy for the devil (i.e. gays), but employ code words to tip off their flocks to their actual thinking on such issues. With O'Reilly, it was his remark to Berman, "...you know what I mean...." (She probably got the point, as witness her attempt to advance the nature argument in the closing moments of the exchange.) Similarly, Carlson likes to pretend he's all for this or that, but he always manages to find a fly in the ointment. Such is the way of bigotry. These people are all bigots, like at least half of the population who agree with them.
Bill-O telling my kid how not to be bullied? This emotionally twisted egotist? You mean this douchebag who bullies anyone he fears and loathes and who can't even say an MSNBC anchor's name without having a stroke can teach anything to my kid???? 'Kids Are Americans Too' ?? My kid doesn't need Mr BO telling her she's an American. I would rather she read the 'Communist Manifesto' than this waste of trees.
Three: an exposition of sexuality in a minor -- and that's very important -- in a minor situation is inappropriate in an academic setting. All of those things are valid, Doctor."
Unless they're straight. I like how Bill kind of meandered around the idea that the lesbos would be doing something innappropriate in the yearbook pic, something straight couples probably wouldn't. Riiiight.
Bill O got owned in this debate.
Orally sure has an obsession with "all this gay stuff". From his statements:
" "[Y]ou don't allow sexuality to intrude in your high school yearbook."
Unless it gets ratings, right Bill O? Thank God we can rest assured that Bill O Is a red-blooded American heterosexual. That sex harrassment suit he settled quietly proves it. What was that thing he was doing with the luffa thing?
On the 6% thing, that may be correct. I'm not aware of a good comprehensive study done. Until there is no shame in liking people of your own gender, no study can be accurate.
However, All of these studies, and especially studies trying to find a genetic cause of homosexuality are off-target. It's not about a choice to be gay or not to be gay. Everyone is forgetting the kinsey scale. Truth is, almost everyone is a little bit gay, and a little bit straight. Almost everyone is fundamentally bisexual.
Our culture has messed with our heads for years to deny this, and it has polarized us into straight and gay. The kids in high-school now, a lot of them, are beginning to realize that these lines are not so hard and fast. Hetero-flexibility and homo-flexibility are becoming more and more common.
These kids are RIGHT in their choice to tweak the adults, they are slowly, step by step, standing up and saying:
"Mom, Dad, Teachers, and Administrators;
"Your values are messed up. We don't like your values, and we don't plan on living by them. We are telling you now so that you can get ready, because when we get to make the rules -- which is sooner than you think -- the rules will be very different."
Another thing: Bill O'Reilly, bad debate tactic. "I did this and this and this to help gay kids." Never refer to your own work. It makes you defensive, pompous, arrogant, and petty. You should know better than that.
Of course, I don't really mind, seeing as he deserves to sound defensive, since he's attacking the fundamental right of every person to be themselves openly, without trying to pass, without suffering the fear of discrimination or abuse.
Well said. Bravo.
you know, what it comes down to, I think, is that the guy just isn't very bright. Besides his retro-ideology, which most conservatives share, he's not even smart enough to recognize how ignorant what he says sounds. He hasn't thought through the logical contradictions of his position. Which are obvious--and which his guest does a good job of pointing out. It seems as though she could barely suppress her laughter through most of this.
Yep, I think that's what it comes down to. He is just not very intelligent, and he doesn't have much intellectual capacity beyond repeating some phrases over and over again.
Hmmm... reminds me of a certain president...
I think we all can agree here that it is pure TV gold when BOR has an actual intelligent person on his show. I have to give him credit that he continues to put the on, since he gets his *ss handed to him every single time. You would think that an egomaniac like him would stop having them on because he embarasses himself so much during these debates.
My favorite part, though, was the book plug in the middle of the conversation. I'm surprised he wasn't able to squeeze in a plug for the new 2007 holiday merchandise on the factor.com.
God will punish us for not hating gays!
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!
Aaaaaiiiiiieeeeeeeee!
Oh my God! Why didn't anyone tell me this before?! Why are the trying to keep it from us?!
(Is this starting to sound like a Jack Chick tract yet?) ;)
At least they weren't soliciting gay sex in an airport men's room!
[Darn no-good liberals, with your "cute couples!" Why, back in my day...]</sarcasm>
Hey, where's DogBone? He made such enlightening contributions on the other "homosexual" thread.
That was a great debate but come on!!!!! There was no sexuality in that picture. Would you be happier if the caption read best friends? If so, the picture next to them should be a heterosexual couple kissing caption reading cutest couple. Get real!!! and keep it fair and balanced
Bill was ridiculous going ballistic over a page in a high school yearbook.