Posted on 10/13/2015 10:30:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson said in a radio interview Friday that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy.
The retired neurosurgeon was on air talking to conservative radio host Eric Metaxas. The conversation took an interesting turn when Carson said he had “nothing against gay people whatsoever” but wanted to know what he could do to make it up to the LGBT community if he continues to oppose same-sex marriage.
“The other thing you have to recognize and this is a very important issue,” Carson said. “If you change the definition of marriage for one group what defense do you have for the next group that comes along and wants it changed. Can you say, ‘no we’re just changing it this one time and it will be this way for forever.’ Well, how is that fair? I mean, it doesn’t make any sense.”
The Advocate reported on Carson’s interview:
Carson followed that up with the old trope that marriage equality will lead to newer definitions of marriage. “The natural next question” is opening up marriage to more than two partners, he said.
“Effectively what it does is it takes away from the tradition of family we’ve known for thousands of years, but also it negates an important part of the word of God,” he said. “And if you can do that with one part of the word of God, you can do it with the rest of it too. Toss the whole thing in the garbage.”
“Obviously, many people don’t care about the word of God,” Metaxas said in return.
Hints? It’s almost guaranteed.
The Supreme Court did not redefine marriage. It undefined marriage.
Anything goes now.
Which is the basis of the homosexual movement. If people do it, it is ok.
As did Scalia many years ago.
uh-oh
It’s tough not to like this guy.
Absolutely yes, and more. If two men can marry, why can’t they be two brothers? Or a father and his son(s)? There is no possible dangerous genetic outcome. And what is the magic of keeping marriage among only two people. No fair saying, “that’s just the way things have always been done.”
I read his book way back when, and while there was much to admire in it, I also recall thinking “I hope he doesn’t run for President...I have a feeling he isn’t cut out for it...”
And I definitely picked up from his book some of his stances that made me not so enamored of him, but...apart from that, I admire the guy.
He’s smart.
He’s piece by piece learning what the Constitution is about.
He learns quickly.
He’s honest.
He has a heart for service.
We could do worse,
He’s not my first choice, but if he somehow wound up on the ticket, I’d vote for him.
“He’s not my first choice, but if he somehow wound up on the ticket, I’d vote for him.”
I believe he is honest too. How refreshing. I would also be happy to vote for him if he won the primary.
Of course it will lead there. Once you grant it is unconstitutional to deny two people of the same sex the right to “marry”, then what possible rationale is there to deny the marriage of several consenting adults? After all, “love is love” as the First Lady says, so no moral objections can be entertained.
Supreme Court, as usual, opened another can of worms.
It’s already in the court system, some guy outside Billings Mt. has already started it wanting to marry a second wife.
No wai! That’s just more crazy talk!
That make no sense at all. Make up what to the LGBT community? Standing by your religious convictions? Is he trying to say "I oppose you in this area, now give me some areas I can support you in?" That sounds like pandering at its worst.
The Dr is correct!
So did Rick Santorum, I believe before Scalia. And he is now still denigrated by many "Republicans."
It represents a degradation of civilization itself.
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.