On Sean Hannity's Fox News Channel program Tuesday night, while discussing same-sex marriage, Dr. Ben Carson made the point that if we change the definition of marriage for homosexuals, what's to stop NAMBLA or those into bestiality from demanding the same.

The media, which is always ready to destroy any black man who dares think for himself, uniformly pounced today. In response to the manufactured uproar, the soft-spoken Carson (who was a hero to the left until he came out as a conservative), did the interview rounds on cable Friday, including Andrea Mitchell's show on MSNBC and Wolf Blitzer's on CNN.

In both appearances, Carson apologized for what he said and made clear that he wasn't comparing gay couples to pedophiles or those erotically charged by animals. His point was that God defined what marriage is, not man, and if man changes that definition, it can lead to anything.

Carson also said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage.
------
NBC News obviously wants to destroy the threat of any independent-thinking black man as quickly as possible.
So it should come as no surprise that, by the time Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart filled in for MSNBC's Martin Bashir, Carson's apology was treated as far from sufficient. In short, Capehart and his guests, Toure' and Krystal Ball, treated the apology as a lie.
------
During last year's GOP primary, Ed Schultz edited video of Texas Governor Rick Perry to make him look racist.

In April of last year, the "Today Show" was caught editing audio of a 9-1-1 call to make George Zimmerman look racist.

In August of 2009, Contessa Brewer sliced and diced a photograph so it wouldn't look like a black man attended a Tea Party carrying a firearm.

So it was only a matter of time before they went after Carson in this way for his apostasy.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/...ed-by-the-White

The left is hell-bent on destroying this man!

Marrage is a dictionary defined word. Butt boy conduct is a different term. So is the strap on crowd, and we are not talking peg leggs.

Quote: Olivia wrote in post #1

---

On Sean Hannity's Fox News Channel program Tuesday night, while discussing same-sex marriage, Dr. Ben Carson made the point that if we change the definition of marriage for homosexuals, what's to stop NAMBLA or those into bestiality from demanding the same.

In both appearances, Carson apologized for what he said and made clear that he wasn't comparing gay couples to pedophiles or those erotically charged by animals. His point was that God defined what marriage is, not man, and if man changes that definition, it can lead to anything.

Carson also said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage.

---

Zitat

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315307/Ive-married-sister--having-second-baby-Siblings-defied-law-plan-start-new-life-abroad.html

'I've married my sister - now we're having our second baby': Siblings who defied law plan to start new life abroad

How they met is a solitary tale of the devastating impact of lies. They grew up in separate towns about 100 miles apart and they met by chance during a night out socialising in a town neither of them is from.

It was a normal, 21st century love affair: two years after they met, Maura became pregnant and so the couple moved in together.

And it was while chatting with her son about his girlfriend that Carmel began to piece together the shocking information which would have devastating implications.

From her son’s answers, Carmel realised that the man she had a brief relationship back in the 1980s, was not only her son’s father, but also the father of James’s girlfriend Maura.

DNA tests confirmed the truth and further disturbing information then emerged. During her brief relationship with Tom, Carmel became pregnant and when the couple went their separate ways, she did not tell her boyfriend that she was expecting his child. Instead, she married another man and this man’s name was listed on her son’s birth certificate as the child’s father.

---

Now what?

Are some formerly "unnatural" sexual relationships now a "right" and other sexual relationships still "unnatural"?

If genetic defects are a societal concern in a brother-sister marriage, would it be allowed if the sister has had a hysterectomy?

If unrelated gays and lesbians can marry, why should gay brothers or lesbian sisters not be allowed to marry each other?

If sex after a $200 dinner at a fancy restaurant with a heterosexual or homosexual "date" is legal, why is skipping the fancy restaurant and simply giving $200 in cash to the heterosexual or homosexual "prostitute" illegal?

Another issue is that what the State says is "marriage" and what the Church says is "marriage" are two separate things. Regardless of what California or New York or Florida or Texas says, if Catholic Sean marries Protestant Jane or Jewish Ruth in a non-Catholic ceremony, no "marriage" exists according to the Catholic Church. I was in that situation myself.

With that in mind, what the State calls "marriage" is about nothing more than legally binding financial obligations, tax codes, inheritance rights, divorce lawyers and losing half your stuff if you part ways. There is nothing "holy" about it.

So, why not get the State completely out of the "marriage" issue and leave the "definition of marriage" up to your Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Whatever faith?

Why drag in sex into what is purely a financial rights and obligation agreement?

Have the States solely in the business of Civil Unions and open those Civil Unions to anybody that wants to risk losing half of their stuff if the Civil Union ends. Thus, two siblings or friends who are widowed or divorced that do not want to have sex with each other can be housemates with all the tax and inheritance benefits as two people who are having sex. Why should a tax bracket be related to sexual conduct?

Under such an arrangement, you go to City Hall to get your tax status squared away and you then go to your Church or Temple to actually get "married as defined by God".

Everybody then gets to believe whatever they want. Adam and Steve believe that they are "married" because the United Church of Christ says that they are and the Catholics and Baptists believe that Adam and Steve are not married because the Catholic Church and the Baptist Churches say that they are not. The States of Texas and New York then stay out of religion and stick to the strictly secular issues of tax brackets and contractual social obligations.

Under such an arrangement, you "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" and you get the IRS and your State out of your sex life.

I nominate Polybius for president!

Quote: Polybius wrote in post #3

---

Quote: Olivia wrote in post #1

---

On Sean Hannity's Fox News Channel program Tuesday night, while discussing same-sex marriage, Dr. Ben Carson made the point that if we change the definition of marriage for homosexuals, what's to stop NAMBLA or those into bestiality from demanding the same.

In both appearances, Carson apologized for what he said and made clear that he wasn't comparing gay couples to pedophiles or those erotically charged by animals. His point was that God defined what marriage is, not man, and if man changes that definition, it can lead to anything.

Carson also said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage.

---

If I had been Dr. Carson, I would have avoided the the sensationalist analogies involving sex with children and animals which have nothing to do with homosexual or heterosexual relationships between consenting adult homo sapiens.

The children/animal analogies lend themselves to ridicule as children and animals have a special status in society that transcends sexual conduct. After the divorce, what does a rancher do with Daisy the Heifer? Lose half of his ranch to her or grill her as the main course at the divorce party? Bringing up the imagery that Timmy married his 4th Grade teacher after the mailman married Lassie is simply not helpful to the discussion.

There are plenty of real world "consenting human adult" examples that Dr. Carson could have used to make his point that a lot of "morality" is still regulated by law without bringing up the imagery of bestiality and sex with children:

As long as the IRS tax exemption is limited to one half of one exception per individual, should consenting adults in Utah or any other state be allowed to marry more than one spouse? What is the difference between "Adam & Steve" and "Adam & Eve & Jennifer & Kate & Nancy"?



What about brothers and sisters? "The girl is your sister, but your mamma don't know" is sometimes not just a line in a calypso song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TCA0JDnmU

Zitat

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315307/Ive-married-sister--having-second-baby-Siblings-defied-law-plan-start-new-life-abroad.html

'I've married my sister - now we're having our second baby': Siblings who defied law plan to start new life abroad

How they met is a solitary tale of the devastating impact of lies. They grew up in separate towns about 100 miles apart and they met by chance during a night out socialising in a town neither of them is from.

It was a normal, 21st century love affair: two years after they met, Maura became pregnant and so the couple moved in together.

And it was while chatting with her son about his girlfriend that Carmel began to piece together the shocking information which would have devastating implications.

From her son’s answers, Carmel realised that the man she had a brief relationship back in the 1980s, was not only her son’s father, but also the father of James’s girlfriend Maura.

DNA tests confirmed the truth and further disturbing information then emerged. During her brief relationship with Tom, Carmel became pregnant and when the couple went their separate ways, she did not tell her boyfriend that she was expecting his child. Instead, she married another man and this man’s name was listed on her son’s birth certificate as the child’s father.

---

Now what?

Are some formerly "unnatural" sexual relationships now a "right" and other sexual relationships still "unnatural"?

If genetic defects are a societal concern in a brother-sister marriage, would it be allowed if the sister has had a hysterectomy?

If unrelated gays and lesbians can marry, why should gay brothers or lesbian sisters not be allowed to marry each other?

If sex after a $200 dinner at a fancy restaurant with a heterosexual or homosexual "date" is legal, why is skipping the fancy restaurant and simply giving $200 in cash to the heterosexual or homosexual "prostitute" illegal?

Another issue is that what the State says is "marriage" and what the Church says is "marriage" are two separate things. Regardless of what California or New York or Florida or Texas says, if Catholic Sean marries Protestant Jane or Jewish Ruth in a non-Catholic ceremony, no "marriage" exists according to the Catholic Church. I was in that situation myself.

With that in mind, what the State calls "marriage" is about nothing more than legally binding financial obligations, tax codes, inheritance rights, divorce lawyers and losing half your stuff if you part ways. There is nothing "holy" about it.

So, why not get the State completely out of the "marriage" issue and leave the "definition of marriage" up to your Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Whatever faith?

Why drag in sex into what is purely a financial rights and obligation agreement?

Have the States solely in the business of Civil Unions and open those Civil Unions to anybody that wants to risk losing half of their stuff if the Civil Union ends. Thus, two siblings or friends who are widowed or divorced that do not want to have sex with each other can be housemates with all the tax and inheritance benefits as two people who are having sex. Why should a tax bracket be related to sexual conduct?

Under such an arrangement, you go to City Hall to get your tax status squared away and you then go to your Church or Temple to actually get "married as defined by God".

Everybody then gets to believe whatever they want. Adam and Steve believe that they are "married" because the United Church of Christ says that they are and the Catholics and Baptists believe that Adam and Steve are not married because the Catholic Church and the Baptist Churches say that they are not. The States of Texas and New York then stay out of religion and stick to the strictly secular issues of tax brackets and contractual social obligations.

Under such an arrangement, you "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" and you get the IRS and your State out of your sex life.

---

IMHO Dr Carson was addressing an insidious aspect of the push for gay 'marriage'. . . erosion of the morality and definitions that underpin our society. If gay activists were only concerned about the financial and legal aspects of marriage (inheritance, etc) separating out the two aspects of marriage would suffice.

However:

The Deconstruction of Marriage