It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

O'Reilly Compares Gays to Al-Qaeda

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
I will agree with you there that there are those that are anti gay just to be with the in crowd or their circle of friends.

that's the opposite of what I said dude, lol




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Not really. I'd hazard that most of those anti-gay are anti-gay because their religion says being gay is a bad thing. Or some other silly reason.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


I disagree, many are yes
But many just believe that it is wrong and might even be atheists.

And alot of do have strong and sound arguments too

I mean just look at nature and the reproductive system, as soon as you understand the birds and the bees you already form an opinion.
It is because this that one can argue that being anti-gay is somewhat natural.... even minus the somewhat.

There are good arguments from both sides of the fence.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
But many just believe that it is wrong and might even be atheists.


Indeed. The Atheist Homophobes

Thank you. You've just named my new band



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
O'Rielly talks out both sides of his mouth. Yada, yada, yada. Tomorrow on Bill O'Rielly..........why is the Westboro Church attacking gays? What a con job.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Wow, I mean look at this thread

It's fascinating to see how it progressed

Obviously anti-gays do not understand gays and it's debatable whether it's any of their business to begin with.

Then there are other pro-homosexual crowds who don't understand anti-gays.

Both parties refuse to understand each other, therefore neither are better than the other, they are in fact the same but who made different choices in lifestyles.

It's truly fascinating
It seems nobody understood anything that I said.. at least judging from responses it is.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Obviously anti-gays do not understand gays and it's debatable whether it's any of their business to begin with.

Then there are other pro-homosexual crowds who don't understand anti-gays.


I think people understand "anti-gays" quite well: bigotry is easily recognizable. I'm not pro or anti homosexual. I simply don't care what people do to find love, I'm just glad if they find it.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

How can you compare a gay person to a terrorist.

how does sexual orientation equate to wanting to be a terrorist?

Ones a lifestyle another is a combat tactic?


Bill was trying to compare how illogical this ad was. One element of it did not relate to the other element.

1) How can you compare being gay to eating a hamburger?

2) How does sexual orientation equate to wanting to eat a hamburger?

One's a lifestyle another is a food product.

I think some individuals' hatred of Bill just makes them even more ridiculous by trying to state he's comparing gays to terrorists in this segment.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
The whole "gay issue" is not an issue at all.

IMO someone being gay doesn't really affect your life in the slightest.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Bill was trying to compare how illogical this ad was. One element of it did not relate to the other element.


Exactly.


We rarely watch Bill as his show seems more to hear himself speak than anything, but that IS what he was saying, that 1:20 is out of context, imho.

The strange thing he DID say was that that commercial would NEVER air in this country, the US.
I say beware of folks who use NEVER in their discussions.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Then there are other pro-homosexual crowds who don't understand anti-gays.


You're right. What I don't understand about anti-gay groups is why anybody's sexual preference is any of their business to begin with.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Bill, Bill, Bill....of course McDonalds won't advertise to Al Qaeda. Businesses want repeat customers, not suicide bombers. ....No, Bill, this commercial ran in France. America won't see a commercial like this until your generation passes away...well, enough of you so that your rants will only go as far as your nursing home attendant.

Bill, I could always tell a foreign film, because sex, sexuality, the human body was dealt with in a matter of fact, healthy way. Hollywood ...and you... OTOH deals with these subjects in an unhealthy way.

And, Bill, France shone brightly in the Age of Enlightenment. The United States was founded with Enlightenment ideas. We've just got some cultural catching up to do. Liberté, égalité, fraternité! Liberty, equality, fraternity! Le Royal!



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Both parties refuse to understand each other, therefore neither are better than the other, they are in fact the same but who made different choices in lifestyles.


So, homosexuality is a choice? Interesting. I did not know that.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
The whole "gay issue" is not an issue at all.

IMO someone being gay doesn't really affect your life in the slightest.


But this is also just an opinion

People have kids, some parents may not want their kids to grow up in an increasingly homosexual society.

So from that perspective it is VERY MUCH their business.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
People have kids, some parents may not want their kids to grow up in an increasingly homosexual society.

So from that perspective it is VERY MUCH their business.


Too bad. Some people are homosexual. It's a part of society and always has been. It will also not affect the child's sexual preference.

It is not anybody's business to attempt to steer the behavior of others in accordance with their personal preferences and prejudices.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
It is not anybody's business to attempt to steer the behavior of others in accordance with their personal preferences and prejudices.


I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you
but what I am saying is that what you are saying is still opinion.

and anything that is an opinion is debatable.
That's what i'm saying



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you
but what I am saying is that what you are saying is still opinion.

and anything that is an opinion is debatable.
That's what i'm saying


It's an opinion that your neighbors should dictate the way of life for everyone according to their own standards?

With the opinion that their children should not "grow up in a homosexual society" (what exactly is that anyway), comes the fact that in order to achieve this a subjugation of the behavior of others is required. Such people are an enemy to freedom.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
It's an opinion that your neighbors should dictate the way of life for everyone according to their own standards?

Dictate? who said anything about dictating
that's too much of a strong word

But it's definately your neighbours business if his state passes a bill allowing homosexuals to adopt.

See, there's a bigger picture here, it's not all just about sexual orientation.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
With the opinion that their children should not "grow up in a homosexual society" (what exactly is that anyway), comes the fact that in order to achieve this a subjugation of the behavior of others is required. Such people are an enemy to freedom.

Again we can go back to the adoption of children case.

It's not just about the choice of a given lifestyle, there's much more to it than that. Things tend to have ripple effects and those ripple effects aren't necessarily confined to "freedom" or "lifestyle choice" anymore.

Do you see what i'm saying?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Again we can go back to the adoption of children case.

It's not just about the choice of a given lifestyle, there's much more to it than that. Things tend to have ripple effects and those ripple effects aren't necessarily confined to "freedom" or "lifestyle choice" anymore.

Do you see what i'm saying?


No I don't.

What is the problem with allowing homosexuals to adopt children?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Once again, Bill O'Reilly proves that he has the intellect of a retarded amoeba.... I can't believe this man has a job, but then again this is Fox we're talking about. Fair and balanced, right.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join