*terrible

Adding video to channels (Terrible) - requested by kulpims.

I wonder if this false slippery slope argument will become O'reilly's tactic to use on other issues as well.

the "slippery slope" argument is a red herring.which is bill-O's trademark.
just bring up "slippery slope" to open the door for numerous non-issues having little or nothing to do with the argument at hand.that is a tried and true tactic for those people whose argument is weak.
and boy o boy is this argument WEAK.
why doesnt bill-O just come out and say he is petrified of "teh gay" instead of resorting to "teh stupit".
the only thing i think is wrong with the current marriage legislation is that many churches are fearful that they would be forced to marry gays.
which is understandable considering that many churches are fundamental in nature.
meaning they obey strict doctrine and their interpretation of scripture leads them to believe that homosexuality is an affront in the eyes of god.
i do not agree with this interpretation,but these churches should have that right to say "no thanks".there are PLENTY of churches out there who have no problem marrying gay people.
better yet..I'LL marry you.i have no such hang-ups on the subject of sexual preference,and a holy union is a holy union.
this unreasonable fear of "teh gay" makes no sense in religious terms.
the creator of the physical universe we inhabit..
of time and space.
creator of every atom and molecule,the wonder,beauty and majesty.
everything we see,hear,touch and love....
BUT....
the creator is afraid of "teh gays" filing a joint tax return?!?
silly.

And why are these people afraid of polygamy anyway? Lots of people do it. Is he worried that he won't have a shot in hell if everyone is with someone else and he's all by himself?

Bill-O just needs a hug and he'll turn into a semi-decent human being...FUCK IT! We'll do it live!!!11

As the culture grows to accept one kind of atypical marriage that's totally fine, it is going to become more tolerant of other kinds of atypical marriages that are totally fine. For once, this really is a slippery slope, but what O'Reilly doesn't understand because he's an appalling bigot, is it's actually a good thing.

When is this guy going to take a critical thinking class so he can get his arguments straight? Oh right...cause that would involve thinking.

They sure talked a lot, but I didn't here anybody say anything.

maybe i'm alone on this issue, but is allowing polygamy really that bad? i really can't see the harm in it. i personally have no desire to be in a polygamous relationship, but if someone else does, who am i to tell them they shouldn't be allowed?

for some context

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-07/threesome-marriages/full/

I'm with xoblaz on this one. O'reilly steps in and says "polygamy" in an evil voice and everyone is like "ooo, polygamy must be wrong". I'm not a polygamist, but why shouldn't we allow those who want plural marriages, as long as the participants are willing of course, to occur. I duno, maybe I'll do some more research on the history of polygamy, but from what I've understood, bans against polygamy we're instated for the most part to protect forced marriages, but that may not be correct.

*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by nibiyabi.