Bill O'reilly defends lesbians(Catholic school Controversy)

[boytyperanma]

One of those odd times I agree with Bill.

A catholic school has decided to suspend a 5 year old because her parents are a lesbian couple.

Bill brings a Catholic priest on to talk about it and basically says your not going to have many kids in your schools if you punish the children for their parents sins.

Bill O'Reilly | Mediaite

[phouka]

Wow.

Uh . . . I really did not see that coming. I would still advance the “there’s nothing wrong with being gay; it’s a variation of the human condition” argument, but since the Catholic church doesn’t give any credence to that idea, Mr. O’Reilly’s argument is the next best thing and is actually grounded in Christian theology.

Go get 'em, Bill.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@phouka

Wow.

Uh . . . I really did not see that coming. I would still advance the “there’s nothing wrong with being gay; it’s a variation of the human condition” argument, but since the Catholic church doesn’t give any credence to that idea, Mr. O’Reilly’s argument is the next best thing and is actually grounded in Christian theology.

I would have thought that descendants being affected by their forebears sins was rather an important facet of Catholicism, so i’m not certain that’d make much headweigh in terms of a practical argument either. But good on him for trying.

[Tethered_Kite]

Revenant Threshhold beat me to it by a couple of seconds.

There are a number of references in the Bible of the sins of the fathers affecting their children. Another social truism couched in theology! So it would seem theologically sound to punish children for choices which their parents make if one considered themselves in a position to do the punishing. That would be playing God, though, wouldnt it?

It sounds to me more like O’Reilly is making a practical (financial) judgement from what the OP states.

[The_Second_Stone]

The flaw in O’Reilly’s argument is that the Catholic Church does this pretty much only to the children of gay couples and gays and lesbians. Apparently it’s okay for the CC’s to let mafiosi and their families into their schools, as well as closeted homosexuals and their families, but openly gay. Lines must be drawn.

[Todderbob]

I… bwha… uhm…

I’m more than slightly uncomfortable by the fact that I agree with… bwah… uhm… Bill… bwhaa… o’r… O’Riley.

[Nava]

@Revenant_Threshold

I would have thought that descendants being affected by their forebears sins was rather an important facet of Catholicism, so i’m not certain that’d make much headweigh in terms of a practical argument either. But good on him for trying.

It is not, actually, not in the way it is usually understood. Allow me to rephrase it: “be careful what you do, because it may be your children and not you who pays for your mistakes.” For example, just take a look at any of the neonatal problems which are linked to parental behavior… you do not need to be a Catholic to understand “thee shalt not drink heavily while pregnant; if thee doest, doth thou not complaint when thy child hast AFS.”

If the school had a problem with the child’s domestic situation, they should not have admitted her. This after-the-fact reaction is just fucking stupid.

[FriarTed]

O’Reilly has also come out in favor of gays’ adoption rights. He gained a reluctant defender in Rosie O’Donnell for a while because of that. Bill’s not a 100% doctrinairre Righty- maybe 99% but not 100%.

Of course, conservatives aren’t supposed to attempt adultery using falafels either…

[Ferret_Herder]

@FriarTed

Of course, conservatives aren’t supposed to attempt adultery using falafels either…

snerk

I was shocked to hear his response to Limbaugh regarding Pres. Obama and how personal attacks are harmful to the debate, and how the president is not a socialist.

[MissMossie]

@phouka

Wow.

Uh . . . I really did not see that coming. I would still advance the “there’s nothing wrong with being gay; it’s a variation of the human condition” argument, but since the Catholic church doesn’t give any credence to that idea, Mr. O’Reilly’s argument is the next best thing and is actually grounded in Christian theology.

Go get 'em, Bill.

Actually, while the Catechism of the Catholic Church does refer to homosexuality acts as “intrinsically disordered” (CCC 2357), it then goes on to state the following:

@CCC 2358

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. The do no choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

I’m not a fan of some of the language, particularly all of those “they’s”, but it seems clear enough to me that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t approve of discrimination based on sexual orientation. O’Reilly’s points seem in line with RCC doctrine as stated in the Church’s Catechism. Now, if only the school would act according to the RCC’s stated beliefs…

[GreatStuffMan]

Hey! One point for Bill!

Too bad that equals to about -999 right now.

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

@Nava

It is not, actually, not in the way it is usually understood. Allow me to rephrase it: “be careful what you do, because it may be your children and not you who pays for your mistakes.” For example, just take a look at any of the neonatal problems which are linked to parental behavior… you do not need to be a Catholic to understand “thee shalt not drink heavily while pregnant; if thee doest, doth thou not complaint when thy child hast AFS.”

If the school had a problem with the child’s domestic situation, they should not have admitted her. This after-the-fact reaction is just fucking stupid.

What about:

@God

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Those lesbians aren’t going to be able to get their great-great grandkids a good Catholic education!

[Marley23]

Past thread where O’Reilly surprised some Dopers. This is what Jon Stewart likes about the guy, I guess.

[wierdaaron]

This isn’t so much O’Reilly defending lesbians as it is promoting the use of logic. He still thinks homosexuality is a sin, most likely, he just doesn’t think a kid should be punished for what their parents do. O’Reilly isn’t the kind of guy to willingly suspend logic in order to manifest faux outrage, which is one of his few advantages over the likes of Glenn Beck, and most likely why Glenn Beck is becoming more favored by the loonies.

Still a creep, he just has some scruples.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@The_Second_Stone

The flaw in O’Reilly’s argument is that the Catholic Church does this pretty much only to the children of gay couples and gays and lesbians. Apparently it’s okay for the CC’s to let mafiosi and their families into their schools, as well as closeted homosexuals and their families, but openly gay. Lines must be drawn.

But that’s precisely the point that O’Reilly hits the priest with. “What about someone who divorces and remarries outside the Church; are you going to expel their kids too?” He’s pointing out that the Church wouldn’t do this in any situation but a gay couple.

When the priest starts sputtering, “those are great questions,” you can see that he knows he can’t really defend this decision. Fraud.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@The_Second_Stone

The flaw in O’Reilly’s argument is that the Catholic Church does this pretty much only to the children of gay couples and gays and lesbians. Apparently it’s okay for the CC’s to let mafiosi and their families into their schools, as well as closeted homosexuals and their families, but openly gay. Lines must be drawn.

You don’t need extreme cases like that, based on this school’s logic they need to expel: children of parents who practice birth control, children who have one or more adulterous parents, etc…

My question is, why would an openly gay couple want to send their kid to a Catholic school? I’m torn–maybe they’re 90% Catholic apart from the whole lesbian thing and still feel the school will instill good values in the kid (whole 'nother Oprah), but then again this is The People’s Republic of Boulder we’re talking about. My cynical bits are wondering if they’re just forcing this issue out of principle and using the kid as a pawn.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Tom_Tildrum

But that’s precisely the point that O’Reilly hits the priest with. “What about someone who divorces and remarries outside the Church; are you going to expel their kids too?” He’s pointing out that the Church wouldn’t do this in any situation but a gay couple.

When the priest starts sputtering, “those are great questions,” you can see that he knows he can’t really defend this decision. Fraud.

Yah. Honestly, I think a lot of this sort of decision-making comes from a sort of elementary-school reaction of “Gay people do what? Ew, ICKY!”

Here’s a great example from a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, who says exactly that on the record: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/12/how-buttsecks-works.html (It’s just a recording from a committee hearing, but the page title may make the link slightly NSFW).

And, honestly, I don’t see anything wrong with thinking “Ew, ICKY!” - I rather suspect that nontrivial numbers of gay folks think the same thing about the preferred pastimes of their straight comrades. The problem comes when “Ew, ICKY!” becomes the basis for public policy, or for entire worldviews. I detest lobster, for example, and can’t understand its appeal at all - but I’d think it absurd to ban lobster-eating, or to hold friends who enjoy lobster in lesser regard than those who share my own view.

[Chicagojeff]

@The_Second_Stone

The flaw in O’Reilly’s argument is that the Catholic Church does this pretty much only to the children of gay couples and gays and lesbians. Apparently it’s okay for the CC’s to let mafiosi and their families into their schools, as well as closeted homosexuals and their families, but openly gay. Lines must be drawn.

TOUCHE second stone!!! As I discovered when i sat next to a mafioso’s son from the first ward in Chicago… so its okay if your dad’s a bagman… but if your mommy has a ladyfriend then we don’t want you. O’Reilly trying to come down from the cliff since Glenn Beck has solidified his status with the nutjobs…

[ShelliBean]

@Inigo_Montoya

My question is, why would an openly gay couple want to send their kid to a Catholic school? I’m torn–maybe they’re 90% Catholic apart from the whole lesbian thing and still feel the school will instill good values in the kid (whole 'nother Oprah), but then again this is The People’s Republic of Boulder we’re talking about. My cynical bits are wondering if they’re just forcing this issue out of principle and using the kid as a pawn.

Not necessarily. I’m an atheist and I sent my kids to Catholic school before we moved. If I moved back to that area I would send them back again. It was simply an excellent school with teachers I genuinely loved and if getting a good education from sweet teachers I figured it wouldn’t kill them to sit through mass once a week.

Plus, no one can instill discipline like a Catholic school teacher.

[Perciful]

Private schools have their own rules. If you don’t like them then send your kid to public school. That is the beauty of Catholic schools. You pay for your kids to become educated in the manner the school see’s fit. Not the parents way or Bill O’Reillys way.