Saturday, September 17, 2005

The No Spin Zone

Sometimes I hear or read something on the news, and I do not know whether to laugh or be pissed.

Here is an excerpt from the September 14 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: The secular progressive movement would like to have marriage abolished, in my opinion. They don't want it, because it is not diverse enough. You know, that's what this gay marriage thing is all about. But now, you know, the poly-amorphous marriage, whatever they call it, you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck, I mean --

LIS WIEHL (co-host): A duck? Quack, quack.

O'REILLY: Well, why, you know, if you're in love with the duck, who is the society to tell you you can't do that?

He made a similar argument in the April 13 broadcast:

So this is just the beginning, ladies and gentlemen, of this crazy gay marriage insanity -- is gonna lead to all kinds of things like this. Courts are gonna be clogged. Every nut in the world is gonna -- somebody's gonna come in and say, "I wanna marry the goat." You'll see it; I guarantee you'll see it.

All right. I've seen similar arguments made by judges, by lawmakers, and by contributors to the Brainerd Dispatch's top-quality "Open Forum" -- that if gay people are allowed to marry, then we will have to legalize bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc.

I do not want to criticize another person's beliefs, but this particular line of "reasoning" makes no sense whatsoever, and anyone who buys into it is a complete fucking moron. I generally think people can believe what they want, and if you have some reason or other to oppose equal rights, then so be it. But if this particular goat & duck argument makes sense to you, it may be time to remove your feeding tube.

Thanks, Mr. O'Reilly, for confirming what we already knew about you. But on the bright side, he does make it much easier to pick out the rational Republicans from the rest.


At 12:30 AM, Blogger jimaal posited...

"Meanwhile, all this business about the gay New Hampshire clergyman makes the Episcopalians sound like marketing representatives; their fear (at least from the antigay contingent) is that electing a homosexual bishop will stop people from going to church. Nothing depresses me more than hearing an organized religion worry about membership. Do they think Jesus is somehow impressed by voter turnout? Do they think God gives preference to religions that appear especially popular? It's not like God only allocates federal funding to religious organizations that meet a quota. Several callers also used this issue to moronically rail against the potential legization of gay marriage. I find this profoundly depressing. In my opinion, we MUST legalize gay marriage. Gay males are the only men in America who still want to be married."
-Chuck Klosterman

all the answers in the world can be found in this man's brain.

At 2:00 PM, Blogger Jake posited...

You'd think O'Reilly would support more permissive marriage laws, so he could finally marry his loofah.

At 2:18 PM, Blogger Tay posited...

first of all i would like to say way to go wanninger on dropping the f-bomb. quite obviously you went with the "pissed" path as opposed to the "laugh" path. i don't blame you. i have heard many arguments about slippery slopes made in other prominent debates from immigration to environmental issues. but often these arguments are backed up with... oh, what's the term... oh yes, reason. rational thinking based on fact or reliable conjectures. however i simply cannot buy the incredible leap from marrying the same sex to marrying a goat (whatever sex it may be). please spare me the psychobable on how once we open up marriage to gay couples it starts a floodgate of unnatural marriages. are people like our dear friend bill infering that gay marriage is like a gateway drug? kinda like pot, once you start with gay marriages you must progress (or digress) to marrying bears, fenceposts, and small dead children (perhaps first lighting them on fire)? i feel stupid just writing that. i cannot comprehend how stupid people must be to actually think it.

At 2:43 PM, Blogger CoachDub posited...

Well, Tay -- I must say you've come a long way since sophomore year, when your argumnet was (more or less): If those homos CHOOSE to be that way, then we can ship them off to an island.

I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Some call it flip-flopping; others call it growth. Good work. A+

At 6:09 PM, Blogger chris posited...

I think we all know where I stand on the Episcopal Church.

My bishop voted FOR Gene Robinson (he has a name) and while I can only say for myself, i think that the rest of the church needs to be more forward thinking and accept all people. I am angry though that journalists decide to pick on the smallest mainstream Christian denomination in America just to show what "excellant" journalists they are.

At 4:22 PM, Blogger P "N" K posited...


O'Reilly is really what I can see tay being in about 40 years. Obviously you could guess that for a few years when Fox News started up (and when O'Reilly was a bit lesser known, a bit calmer, and not quite the "celebrity" he is now) my parents (and I occasionally) watched The Factor from 7-8 CST.

Anyway point is, O'Reilly basically throws himself back and forth across the political landscape with reckless abandon. Analogous to a tornado in Kansas. Tay, as was determined last year, actually orbits the political spectrum, staring down through the Hubble telescope at everyone from Pat Buchanan to Al Franken and Michael Moore. But like O'Reilly, neither really can identify.

It's an interesting extrapolation, especially since it's at least 40% possible. Tay O'Reilly.

At 9:24 PM, Blogger Tay posited...

umm... no. no parker, that's not going to happen. as of now, the more i learn about politics, the less conservative i become. so to even infer that i would become a flaming conservative is absolutely stupid. i don't know what it is parker, but you constantly seem to be trying to convince me that i'm on your side when it comes to politics. i'm not. so shut up and accept it.

At 9:50 PM, Blogger CoachDub posited...

IMPLY, not infer.

(Just so you know)

At 9:55 PM, Blogger Johnny V posited...

Parker, not Tay O'Reilly (never that). Tay NORTHWAY. NORTHway. Northway.

Anyways, yeah. Tay does have a lot of "steam-rollers" and "nuclear blasted Cubas" in his past and there were even times last when his political ideas truly had blasted off into space (aka, the time when he somehow argued against himself and then came right back around on the issue of the Bible). But, more or less, he has crash landed back on the political spectrum somewhere on the left. Much like a large asteroid, he has kicked up a lot of smoke and fire to disguise his actual location, but all things point to a moderate lefty. Congrats Tay, welcome to the club.

This doesn't mean I can't make fun of you about being Conservative, still. Haahaaaaahahahahaaha

At 1:44 PM, Blogger P "N" K posited...

Tay, I don't know why you think I label you as a conservative. I label you as a solar orbiter. You join the earth and universe as a whole in a joyful dance around the stars/political spectrum. You basically aren't anything. Except orbiting.

At 2:11 PM, Blogger Tom posited...

this is a clear cut case of the classic "before he was just confused, then he found out how trendy libralism was so he jumped on" scenario. yep.

At 4:52 PM, Blogger Johnny V posited...

Lolz. Scotty Dub.

At 7:26 PM, Blogger hobe posited...

Ha. Duck marrying leftys, exactly why I support the right to conceal and carry. Plus it makes me feel like a real man. Definately lolz.

At 9:45 PM, Blogger Houley posited...

so wait...

is it legal for the goat to marry the duck? or is that one still caught up in the courts as well?

At 10:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous posited...

"this is a clear cut case of the classic "before he was just confused, then he found out how trendy libralism was so he jumped on" scenario. yep."

Liberalism is OBVIOUSLY trendy, I mean, look at how much of the government liberals control.

At 10:10 AM, Blogger Josh posited...

uhhh that was me

At 10:14 PM, Blogger Tom posited...

most of the people who are "bandwagon liberals" arent old enough to vote, and the older people get, the more conservative they tend to get.


Post a Comment

<< Home