Skip to comments.Ben Carson takes on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on the definition of ‘marriage’ [VIDEO]
Posted on 03/29/2013 12:37:03 PM PDT by Rufus2007
On Sean Hannitys Fox News program earlier this week, Dr. Ben Carson, the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, offered his view on the hot-button issue of the week, same-sex marriage.
According to Carson, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, what he called a well-established, fundamental pillar of society. And Carson said this institution could not be redefined by any group, including proponents of bestiality and pedophilia.
Invoking those groups drew the ire of many, but Carson went on MSNBCs Andrea Mitchell Reports to clarify his remarks, which he apologized to those who took offense.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Mitchell should be boycotted...just as the libs boycott Fox. We are now at the point where we have our news and they have their propaganda. Andrea Mitchell = propaganda. It’s not just LSDNBC...it’s the other “real” NBC too...Comcast/General Electric gave Obama two tv networks for business considerations...anybody paying attention knows this. Our people don’t talk about it...and I don’t know what our folks are afraid of.
Like Mitt Romney, Republicans are too nice...we don’t want to get in the mud with these thugs...we no longer have that option.
Just like Herman Cain. As soon as another intelligent black conservative begins to get a voice, it’s up to the RAT’s to get this uppity black back to the plantation!
I am grateful to be on Dr Crason's side. On the other hand, I'm damn grateful not to be on Mitchell's.
bump for later
It’s funny, I believe Johns Hopkins no longer does sex change operations because the patients were just as sick in the head after as before. Yet I think JH just disinvited Carson from speaking at their commencement because of his views.
Any time a media person tries to nail you about gay marriage, turn it around to them.
Say "I didn't realize you are gay!"
What an idiotic comment!
Dr. Carson merely "ventured" into exercising his free speech rights in a public forum, as America's Founders intended every citizen to be able to do without being silenced.
Her challenges to this man's opinions, as well as his constitutionally-protected right to express them, reveal her shallow understanding of history and, in particular, of the history of her own nation.
Carson is informed by his study of the history of nations and, in particular, the enduring principles of liberty underlying America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
By what authority does Mitchell assume such an outrageous willingness to challenge him?
The pseudointellectuals who occupy the White House, the media, and much of Congress fancy themselves "intellectuals."
By their words and actions, however, they display a provinciality reminiscent of that Dr. Kirk recalls as having been described by T. S. Eliot as being one of time and place, having no intellectual grounding in ideas older than their own little experience in dabbling and discussing Mao, Marx, and other theoreticians.
America's written Constitution deserves protectors whose minds are out of their teens in terms of their understanding of civilization's long struggle for liberty and of the enduring principles which have been found to undergird and support liberty when, indeed, it has been achieved in a society.
Ben has great potential, but he must realize that the press will never, NEVER, allow him to occupy the White House ... because he is a conservative Christian. So, he should give up trying to appease them right now, from the gitgo, and be true to his beliefs. His reply to Ms. Mitchell should have been simply, well yes Andria, I am a Christian, and the Bible explains to us what has been generally accepted for thousands of years by civilized man: that homosexuality is perversion of the same sort as bestiality. And yes, Andria, you should remember that almost all pedophiles are homosexuals. So no, Andria, I do not apologize. Ben has taken a turn to appeasement politics which will not work with the communists running the media.
I heard Don Imus ( on his radio program ) ask the question regarding Gay Marriage -— “What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?”
First, regarding — “What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?” — Liberals make a common mistake in assuming this issue is about limiting the freedom of homosexuals.
The reality is -— there’s currently nothing that stops homosexuals from making lifelong commitments to each other. Gays already are allowed to make the same commitment. In fact, its done all the time. They already have the liberty to do what they want with their own lives.
The problem lies here -— A marriage license, however, goes a step further than providing liberty.
It doesnt give liberty, it FORCES SOCIETY’s APPROVAL of that union, which homosexuals don’t presently have.
It forces people whose deeply held religious beliefs tell them that homosexual acts are sinful to give their APPROVAL to these acts.
So, gay marriage is not about what homosexuals are being forced by others not to do, but what society is being forced to do by homosexuals: APPROVE. That’s another issue entirely.
Gays can marry all they want, but why should devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and others be FORCED to violate their religious tenets in order to give approval to this lifestyle?
Second, implicit in the act of altering the definition of marriage to include homosexuals is the acknowledgment that marriage isn’t anything in particular, but can be defined and redefined as society likes.
If marriage isn’t any particular thing, then family isn’t any particular thing either (this not only follows; it’s an integral part of their argument). If we then concede that family isn’t anything in particular, but is simply a convention, a social construct we invented and can alter at will, then this has direct ramifications for the future of the family as we know it.
How can you say this isn’t an impact?
Finally, if marriage isn’t anything in particular, but is merely defined by society in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions, then you cannot argue that “marriage” between humans and animals could never take place because animals can’t consent (or cant, as some people put it, enter into contracts).
“Who are you to say” that a marriage is based on consent? If you can change its definition once you can change it again.
For instance, a baby used to be considered human, worthy of protection under the law. Now, there are those who would allow babies born alive to be slaughtered. Once you start on that path, how does it end? What was once considered a ridiculous argument has now become REAL and something we are now grappling with.
It’s also a bit stunning that liberal objections to humans marrying animals is grounded in the inability of animals to consent. Is this the best rejoinder they can offer?
Philosopher J.P. Moreland tells of a guy in Colorado, I think, who brought his horse to the courthouse to try to get a marriage license for the two of them. The clerk was flummoxed for a moment and finally turned him away because the horse wasn’t 18 years old yet! I guess this was just another way of saying that the horse was under the age of consent.
My point is, I think there is a more obvious concern than mere consent. Marriage *IS* and *MEANS* something in particular, not something we can re-define and twist any way we want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.