O'Reilly's on right now saying that gays shouldn't march in the Patty's day parade because it honors a Saint and it's a religious holiday. The guest, a psychatrist (why?) and a complete wet noodle, smiles and says, "when you put it that way, I agree with you 1000%". And that's why you got invited on, lady.
O'Reilly: "I don't want gays to be in a situation where there are little children present and who go, 'Mommy, what's that mean?'"
I love this logic, the "I shouldn't have to explain it" logic. Using it, you could argue for banning black people from parades, too (I shouldn't have to explain why different races exist), or keep people from wearing, "I heart gravity" shirts (I don't believe in it; why should I have to explain it!) Maybe if you didn't home-school your kids, they'd learn about this stuff at school and you'd be spared such embarassing or awkward displays of your discomfort about sharing basic information with your kids, stupid.
O'Reilly then goes on to compare the St. Pat's Day parade with Catholic sacraments, thereby succeeding in simultaneously insulting gays, parades, and sacraments. Kudos, Bill, you got a three-peat!
"If you're gay, and you're getting your neices or nephews baptized, you don't go into the Church with a shirt that says, 'I'm Queer'. It's inappropriate; it's a sacrament."
Now, I haven't been to too many baptisms, but I'm pretty sure that even without any gays involved, it's pretty far from any St. Patty's Parade, even a tame one. For one, there's marching. I'm no expert, but I'd guess that the marching during a baptism is probably at a minimum. Also bagpipes. O'Reilly went on to repeatedly point out that St. Patrick's Day is "about celebrating a Saint, and Irish culture. Nothing about gays or sexuality involved." Uh huh. Because we all know it's not like the Irish (or the Church) are associated with a particular sexuality, right?
When his guest tried to respond, he shook his big ol' potato-shaped head and said, "Sorry Ma'am, it's about the Saint. What's the name of the parade, again? Yeah, that's what I thought." BUURN! In your face, ma'am! That's what she gets for going on the Factor unpreprared for Bill's blistering commentary.
Frankly, I don't know what parade this guy's been watching for the past however-many-years. I'm looking forward to when Monsignor Bill starts criticizing all the straight Irish folks who spend their "sacrament" of a holiday puking green beer all over the wee bairns. Why is it ok to have to explain what a drunk is, but not gays?
This was also great:
"[Do the people who disagree with me] have a neurosis?"
I know you wish it was that easy, Bill... (And a few of your co-horts have already jumped the shark.)
Also, O'Reilly criticizes Pat Robertson and Billy Graham for saying Islam is demonic. Interestingly enough, though, O'Reilly's main issue with this seems to be strategic- he's worried it will make moderate Muslims mad at the U.S. Now he's having it out with Rev. Al Mohler, who's saying that the Revs were just "speaking truth" as good Christians. Mohler says that any belief system other than his is in deep, deep trouble, although he said that he doesn't have a problem with Jews. (Really?)
Oh, snap! O'Reilly just hammered Mohler. "Are you really going to go up to a peace-loving Hindu and tell him that his religion is demonic?"
Incidentally, neither Robertson nor Graham would appear on "The Factor", but Bill seems to have forgotten his typical "coward-speech". Instead he just said they'd be welcome to appear.
...Well, seems balanced to me.
One last bit. Last night O'Reilly showed a sex clip from "Without a Trace" to talk about how bad it was and how much it will hurt kids (as much as gay adoption?) One viewer wrote in saying that he didn't need to show it, and that his "excellent description" could have worked just as well. But O'Reilly said no, in order to have an accurate discussion, he had to show it. Funny, he didn't seem to feel this way when talking about Abu Ghraib photos.