Bill O'Reilly defends Ellen DeGeneres

[Jegsimmons]

hence why most of us dont care.

Though you have to live with the vocal minority.

dont we all?

also id like to point out that not all gay people even approve of gay marriage....true fact.

 

[3 legged goat]

Wow..I'm scared now. I saw Bill O'Riley actually stand up for a gay person.

I went and bought a pair of jeans at JC penny after I heard about that million mom objection to Ellen.

I already buy all my jeans from JCPenny's! Take that homophobes!

 

[Mr Dizazta]

Bill defending a gay woman
Eli Manning having more Super Bowl rings than his brother
The Lions and 49ers making the playoffs
The LA Clippers actually playing well
A Femshep trailer for ME3

Just some of the weird ass shit that has happened in just this year.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

Good on him for standing up for gay people. I don't really know anything about Bill O Reilly, usually all I here of him is how ignorant he is or something. But that video made him look like a pretty decent person.

 

[Commissar Sae]

The fun thing is that if they did fire her based on her sexuality, she could legitimately sue the company for wrongful dismissal. And that is kind of awesome.

While I'm sure Bill is crazy about Ellen Degeneres' life choices, at least he has the decency to remain constant in his defense of his other values. He doesn't automatically throw out all sense of fairness or decency just because shes gay.

 

[3 legged goat]

Perhaps he isn't retarded like Glenn Beck... can we talk about Glenn Beck and how retarded he is now? No? Fine.

OT : Good for him. It is always nice to see mainstream media speaking out against things like this.

 

[Harkonnen64]

It would probably suprise a lot of people to know that Bill O'Reilly is actually the most moderate person on Fox (excluding people just there to provide counterpoints and get shouted down). This doesn't suprise me very much at all.

Didn't surprise me either. Between Hannity's shameless contempt for Obama and Glenn Beck's... out-there-ness, O'Reilly often comes off as representative of Fox New's more moderate viewers. I can recall a number of times in which he's criticized Bush programs (namely immigration and the economy) and given due to what he has believed to be some of the finer moments of the Obama Administration. O'Reilly strikes me as someone who "calls them as he sees them;" but as he is a conservative on a conservative network, he's views are most often going to be, well, conservative.

 

[Olas]

Bill O`Rielly wasn't really defending Ellen though, or anything related to homosexuality. He was defending JC Penny and it's freedom to select employees. I'm sure if the corporation chose to fire Ellen for being a homosexual he would defend that too since his argument is for free enterpise.
The underlying point though is that even the most polar opposite people will inevitably agree on some issues. The world isn't black and white.

 

[axlryder]

I don't get what the surprise is... most Republicans and/or Christians (I'm talking real Christians, not those Westboro Baptist heretics) don't care who is or isn't gay, we just don't want the government interfering with our religion...

Interfering with your religion? LOL. Yeah, it's not doing that at all anyway. If anything it'd be the other way around. See: Gay marriage.

I don't get it. More militant atheists stand up and declare from the rooftops that marriage is a purely religious institution, but when it comes to gay marriage, they insist that it be put into law.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

(If you don't regard marriage as a religious institution, then please ignore this post.)

I've always said that marriage should be entirely religious. As in, it confers zero rights and privileges under the law. Civil unions, an entity entirely separate from religion, would confer those rights, performed in a court of law.

Separation of church and state.

That's just silly. Marriage is nothing but a word. What religious people do now and what the government does in regards to marriage are unrelated except where certain religious people feel the need to make the government comply to their standards. It's already entirely separate as an entity, it simply uses the same word.

While I'm not particularly versed on the whole gay marriage thing (I'm actually fairly indifferent towards it), there seems to be some overlap between perceived legal benefits and the religious institution of marriage. I imagine if the distinction between the purely legal aspects of a civil union and the purely religious institution of marriage were so clearly defined then gays would simply request the legal aspect be fulfilled by the government and take up the issues of a religious union with the church (this would also encompass aspects like "getting married in a church by a priest" or something). Now if there is some legal overlap in terms of tax benefits and such, I agree that there should be a very clean and distinct separation which imparts any and all legal benefits onto civil unions. This way it's no longer anyone's business what the church does aside from the church itself, as it has zero bearing on any legal matters. I also think this distinction should be made regardless of its effect on gay marriage. Of course the concept of discrimination pops up at that point, but I'm speaking primarily about the tangible financial and social benefits that come from marriage.

 

[axlryder]

I don't get what the surprise is... most Republicans and/or Christians (I'm talking real Christians, not those Westboro Baptist heretics) don't care who is or isn't gay, we just don't want the government interfering with our religion...

Interfering with your religion? LOL. Yeah, it's not doing that at all anyway. If anything it'd be the other way around. See: Gay marriage.

I don't get it. More militant atheists stand up and declare from the rooftops that marriage is a purely religious institution, but when it comes to gay marriage, they insist that it be put into law.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

(If you don't regard marriage as a religious institution, then please ignore this post.)

I've always said that marriage should be entirely religious. As in, it confers zero rights and privileges under the law. Civil unions, an entity entirely separate from religion, would confer those rights, performed in a court of law.

Separation of church and state.

That's just silly. Marriage is nothing but a word. What religious people do now and what the government does in regards to marriage are unrelated except where certain religious people feel the need to make the government comply to their standards. It's already entirely separate as an entity, it simply uses the same word.

While I'm not particularly versed on the whole gay marriage thing (I'm actually fairly indifferent towards it), there seems to be some overlap between perceived legal benefits and the religious institution of marriage. I imagine if the distinction between the purely legal aspects of a civil union and the purely marriage were so clearly defined then gays would simply request the legal aspect be fulfilled by the government and take up the issues of a religious union with the church (this would also encompass aspects like "getting married in a church by a priest" or something). Now if there is some legal overlap in terms of tax benefits and such, I agree that there should be a very clean and distinct separation which imparts any and all legal benefits onto civil unions. This way it's no longer anyone's business what the church does aside from the church itself, as it has zero bearing on any legal matters.

And what overlap is that? There are no religious aspects involved in what the government does unless perhaps you choose to get said marriage through some religious official, which I believe is possible. The legal aspect simply is filled by the government, nothing more. Any kind of church involvement etc is not a requirement of it. There simply is no real overlap.

If that's true, and gay's have all the same legal benefits via civil unions as heterosexual couples might get through "traditional marriage", then I don't understanding what people are whining about. The church is independent of government. I can understand complaints about discrimination, but why would someone so desperately want to be accepted by a purely religious institution that's discriminating against them in the first place? The whole premise of all this seems rather ridiculous.

 

[axlryder]

I don't get what the surprise is... most Republicans and/or Christians (I'm talking real Christians, not those Westboro Baptist heretics) don't care who is or isn't gay, we just don't want the government interfering with our religion...

Interfering with your religion? LOL. Yeah, it's not doing that at all anyway. If anything it'd be the other way around. See: Gay marriage.

I don't get it. More militant atheists stand up and declare from the rooftops that marriage is a purely religious institution, but when it comes to gay marriage, they insist that it be put into law.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

(If you don't regard marriage as a religious institution, then please ignore this post.)

I've always said that marriage should be entirely religious. As in, it confers zero rights and privileges under the law. Civil unions, an entity entirely separate from religion, would confer those rights, performed in a court of law.

Separation of church and state.

That's just silly. Marriage is nothing but a word. What religious people do now and what the government does in regards to marriage are unrelated except where certain religious people feel the need to make the government comply to their standards. It's already entirely separate as an entity, it simply uses the same word.

While I'm not particularly versed on the whole gay marriage thing (I'm actually fairly indifferent towards it), there seems to be some overlap between perceived legal benefits and the religious institution of marriage. I imagine if the distinction between the purely legal aspects of a civil union and the purely marriage were so clearly defined then gays would simply request the legal aspect be fulfilled by the government and take up the issues of a religious union with the church (this would also encompass aspects like "getting married in a church by a priest" or something). Now if there is some legal overlap in terms of tax benefits and such, I agree that there should be a very clean and distinct separation which imparts any and all legal benefits onto civil unions. This way it's no longer anyone's business what the church does aside from the church itself, as it has zero bearing on any legal matters.

And what overlap is that? There are no religious aspects involved in what the government does unless perhaps you choose to get said marriage through some religious official, which I believe is possible. The legal aspect simply is filled by the government, nothing more. Any kind of church involvement etc is not a requirement of it. There simply is no real overlap.

If that's true, and gay's have all the same legal benefits via civil unions as heterosexual couples might get through "traditional marriage", then I don't understanding what people are whining about. The church is independent of government, this has no business in our presidential debates.

They don't have the same rights via civil unions. Either you're just not an American and clearly don't get the issue or I'm tempted to wonder if you're playing stupid =|

Marriage, as provided by the government, is not called a civil union. There are civil unions and there are marriages. Government provided marriage is not provided equally in all states.

I was referring to the term civil union under the terms outlined in the initial post which you responded to (just replace "civil union" with "legal marriage" in my previous posts and my intended meaning should come across just fine). Also, again, if indeed "government provided marriages" (which I'm going to refer to as legal unions from here on out for ease of communication) are not provided equally, as I said before, we should provide two terms to distinguish legal unions and religious marriage and make damn clear that the church has zero influence over said legal benefits and that the religious institution of marriage can remain however it wants to be. I've found that vague wording and poor distinctions tend to cause a lot of misunderstanding. In fact, I imagine if the terms were completely separate to begin with then perhaps so many religious folk wouldn't feel they were entitled to interfere with "legal unions". I know I'm relegating a huge debate to a "there, fixed it" solution and I'm sure I'm not the first one to bring this up, but I also think it's pretty obvious that defining two completely separate things, one intrinsically related to beliefs and the other to law, under the same term (marriage) isn't a particularly good idea.

 

[The Human Torch]

It amazes me that people actually exist that have such a view on life, and specifically, other people's lives.

What gender Ellen DeGeneres shares the bed with is her own damn choice, same goes for any other person. I am actually, EXTREMELY, pissed off that America still leads by bad example.

It's discrimination and ignorance at it's finest. This is the 21st century, people, GET OVER YOUR MEDIEVAL FEARS!

Why, when ever someone in America does something stupid, is it immediately blamed on America as a whole? Damn, that gets annoying. Other countries fucking stone gay people, and when one stupid group complains about a gay person (and is immediately criticized by one of the most conservative people here) America is the bad example.

Appearantly one MILLION moms are homophobics, so that's a pretty good country representation.

And no, I don't believe that all of America has the same mindset, and I am sure that other countries have other anti-gay sentiments or even violence, but that is neither here nor now.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

All of you people talking like this is some crazy thing that you agree with Bill O'Reilly really need to get over yourselves. Is he a blowhard? Absolutely. Does he make bad arguments? Without question. But that doesn't make him a bad person and it doesn't make him stupid.

Does he disagree with Gay rights? Yes

This is why this decision - and Fox's decision to air it - are all the more odd.

Especially when run against this:
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/16643414/why-jc-penney-will-be-the-most-interesting-retailer-of-2012

2nd February: 1 Million Moms demand Firing.

5th February: Fox Carolina: Overtly positive J C Penny story. No mention of Ellen.

7th Feburary: Glenn Beck defends Ellen. http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/02/07/glenn-defends-ellen-degeneres/

8th February: J C Penney defends hiring Ellen Degenres. She admits so on her show.

9th February: http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/16773875/bill-oreilly-becomes-a-supporter-for-ellen-degeneres

Now, that's an interesting timeline.

What would be more interesting is the hiring of Ron Johnson; from the 5th Feburary story:

J.C. Penney just blew up its brand -- in a good way -- thanks to a new management team with some radical new ideas. J.C. Penney is about to be the most interesting retail story of the year.

Would a radical new idea be to utilise Fox News to cause a furor for people to ignore the hard-line right of 40,000 members of 1 Million Moms in order to take on the million or so new shoppers?

Especially when News International (Who own The Sun and Fox News) are under major scrutiny for bias?

 

[Frostbite3789]

Everyone's panic is delicious.

There's virtually no one who won't agree with you at least once, but apparently, people on the internet don't understand such a bizarre concept.

This isn't the first time either. If I recall, he was against the California video game law. And everyone acted all shocked then.

 

[Otaku World Order]

I remember when some of these family values types gout their knickers in a twist over Ellen being in Finding Nemo, 'cause they thought voicing a cartoon fish would allow her to transmit gayness genes into their children or something.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Does he disagree with Gay rights? Yes

No. No, he doesn't.

Bill O'Reilly does not believe that gay people deserve any less or any more rights than straight people. He, undoubtedly, believes in equality like every other sane human being.

What he doesn't believe in is changing the traditional definition of marriage. But, I know, that's not as demonizing as saying he's against gay rights, so you have to put it in a negative light. After all, it's hard to make your ideological opponents into ridiculous caricatures if you actually state their opinion factually instead of using emotion laden invective. I mean, if you actually gave people a chance to be human beings, other people might have to listen to their arguments and you'd have to try harder than just yelling "hater!" and getting everyone on your side.

The fact that you are so extremely lazy in your thought processes and argument is entirely offensive to me. You disgust me, grow up.

This is why this decision - and Fox's decision to air it - are all the more odd.

Especially when run against this:
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/16643414/why-jc-penney-will-be-the-most-interesting-retailer-of-2012

2nd February: 1 Million Moms demand Firing.

5th February: Fox Carolina: Overtly positive J C Penny story. No mention of Ellen.

7th Feburary: Glenn Beck defends Ellen. http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/02/07/glenn-defends-ellen-degeneres/

8th February: J C Penny defends hiring Ellen Degenres. She admits so on her show.

9th February: http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/16773875/bill-oreilly-becomes-a-supporter-for-ellen-degeneres

Now, that's an interesting timeline.

What would be more interesting is the hiring of Ron Johnson; from the 5th Feburary story:

J.C. Penney just blew up its brand -- in a good way -- thanks to a new management team with some radical new ideas. J.C. Penney is about to be the most interesting retail story of the year.

Would a radical new idea be to utilise Fox News to cause a furor for people to ignore the hard-line right of 40,000 members of 1 Million Moms in order to take on the million or so new shoppers?

Especially when News International (Who own The Sun and Fox News) are under major scrutiny for bias?

So, Fox News wants to get JC Penny's advertisement revenue? I don't know what that has to do with Glenn Beck, but whatever, this is your game.

Let's say you're right. Fox News is just in it for the money. Bill O'Reilly is just a shill for the advertisement dollar and doesn't actually have a soul. If that's the case, I honestly don't see a problem with it. If Bill only follows the dollar and the dollar is moving in the direction of "support the hiring of others, regardless of who they are" that only goes to show that America is becoming a better place. By extension Fox News is becoming a better place by being dragged by their wallet to the obvious right decisions.

By the way, don't expect me to defend Fox News. I don't watch their programming, I don't like their programming. But I will defend anyone I feel is being wrongfully presented. Bill O'Reilly may not have your values, but I personally don't think he's in it for the ratings or the revenue. You're free to disagree.