Dr. Ben Carson: So-Called ‘Gay Marriage’ Is Like 2+2=5

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Speaking with Newsmax TV host Ed Berline on Mid-Point about his latest book One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future, world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson discussed some of the “biggest, contentious issues in America right now.” The popular conservative star is currently making the rounds on several media outlets, fueling speculation about his presidential aspirations for 2016. Dr. Carson called for “compromise” in the heated same-sex “marriage” debate and once again reaffirmed his belief that true “marriage is between a man and woman.”

During Monday’s conversation, the retired director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital began with an appeal to abandon “political correctness” and replace it with “civil discourse.” Dr. Carson also said that the key to constructive conversation requires that all “people have to be willing to understand that not everybody thinks the same way that they do.”

“A lot of people say, ‘Well, Carson’s a homophobe because he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.’ That’s ridiculous,” he protested. The juvenile, playground-style name-calling tactics of the “gay” lobby come straight from the nefarious, scheming strategies of Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his book Rules For Radicals to Lucifer, “the very first radical.” Saul Alinsky’s work is considered the bible for Liberalism, and in an earlier op-ed for the Washington Times, Dr. Carson explained that “the original radical community organizer and societal change agent [Alinsky], says you should never have a rational discussion with your opponent. Doing so would humanize him, and your goal is to demonize him. With this tactic, he states that you can incur your opponent’s wrath, causing him to respond angrily, and in many cases, irrationally, which then provides an opportunity to use that irrational response against him.”

Not only did Hillary Clinton admire Alinsky so much that she wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College on his demented way of thinking, the homosexual activists have also taken a page right out of the same playbook as well. Rather than engage in reasonable debate with their opponents, they prefer to spew vitriol and hurl epithets such as homophobe, bigot, hater, and anti-gay as if they’re going out of style. And not only that, since they have been unable to win the debate in the arena of ideas or at the ballot box, a complicit and constitutionally-rogue legal system has imposed their deviant agenda by judicial fiat.

Carson also made his stance on marriage abundantly clear when he firmly stated, “I don’t believe that anybody gets to change the definition of something that is a societal pillar and has been there for thousands of years.” But he further added, “I don’t think I can impose my will on any two consenting adults. They can do what they want to do. I’m not going to try to stop them from doing that, but they don’t get to change the definition.” The fact of the matter is that it has never been about telling any individual who they can or can’t love – that’s nothing but a deceptive, but unfortunately effective, homosexual misrepresentation of the pro-natural marriage position. The real issue, however, concerns the alarming homosexual efforts at shredding the dictionary, distorting of the Constitution, creating false rights out of thin air, rewriting civil laws to criminalize deeply held moral convictions, hijacking science to promote a deviant political/social agenda, and eliminating all religious and conscience protections for business owners. As has been said numerous times before, every advance of the militant “gay agenda” comes at the literal expense of true democracy and freedom.

For those homosexuals who are willfully oblivious to the natural order of the genders and obviously ignorant of human physiological compatibility, Carson offered them this helpful analogy:

It’s sort of like a new group of mathematicians that come along, and they say 2+2=5. And the traditionalist say, ‘No, it’s 4, it’s always been 4, it always will be 4.’ And the new ones say, ‘No, we insist that it’s 5.’ So, that the traditionalists say, ‘I’ll tell you what, for you it can can be five; we’re keeping it as 4.’ And then, the new ones say, ‘No, no, it has to be 5 for you, and if it’s not, then you’re a mathosaur or a mathophobe. And basically, that’s the situation we find ourselves in.

Hopefully, this simple lesson in Logic 101 will prove beneficial for those who either slept through their human reproduction class in high school or who are apparently suffering from deficiencies in rationality. Best of all, it doesn’t even take a brain surgeon to figure this out — so long as the fuzzy math of Common Core hasn’t corrupted one’s cognitive abilities.

“I asked a prominent individual in the ‘gay’ community, I said, ‘What position could a person take who believes in traditional marriage that would be satisfactory to you?’” Dr. Carson shared, “And after thinking about it for a while, he said, ‘There is no other position. You have to embrace ‘gay’ marriage. That’s the only position that’s acceptable to us.’ That sounds a little bit like intolerance to me. It sounds like my way-or-the-highway.”

The reason the aforementioned statement “sounds a little bit like intolerance” is because, make no mistake about it, that’s exactly what it is. As Washington Post columnist and homosexual Jonathan Capehart, in a moment of unusual candor, admitted last month in response to comments made by New York Times columnist William Rhoden, “I understand you’re saying that it has to be a two-way conversation. But tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street.” And many homosexuals actually believe this ridiculous bilge. Tolerance for them is nothing but empty rhetoric. Just as they have futilely attempted to redefine marriage, they have done exactly the same thing when it comes to the word “tolerance.” For a card-carrying gaystapo member, tolerance is actually a liberal “dog whistle” or code language for tyranny or totalitarianism – a person can say whatever they want so long as they don’t offend anyone, especially a homosexual. And any dissenters will be summarily shipped off on the “highway” to the “gay” gulag of sensitivity training — actually, reeducation camp to receive a government-provided, pro-perversity lobotomy.

“And I think even though ‘gays’ suffered a lot of discrimination in the past, and I denounce that in the book. I don’t think that’s the right way to treat anybody, But that doesn’t mean that you get to change everything for everybody else,” he continued. Au contraire, Dr. Carson! Many of the vindictive items on homosexual agenda are designed exactly as vengeance against their supposed oppressors. They actually believe that any perceived, historical discrimination against them provides ample justification for the implementation of their mean-spirited retaliatory “pro-gay” policies.

Unlike the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s in which African Americans united and fought against the truly heinous injustices of racial inequality and unprovoked acts of violence, the homosexual rights movement has no intentions of being peaceful. Nobody should fool themselves, this is a hostile takeover of America.

(Editor’s Note: Dr. Ben Carson’s comments about same-sex “marriage” begin at about the 4:30 mark in the above video.)

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • Dealing-with-idiots

    I agree with Ben Carson; we have lost civil discourse for sure. However, there are some people who do hate others and engage in very uncivil discourse (witness those opposed to gay people on thus site – so sometimes one is required to point out that, while entitled to their opinion, they are in fact bigots or hateful or yes anti-gay). But yes, not all people who raise questions about gay marriage should be called homophobic or bigoted. That is wrong. All homosexual activists should not be called radicals. Most are fighting for their rights. Most have never even heard of aslinsky…lol.
    Finally, the irony of the article is that it is about an intelligent man seeking to return to civil discourse, yet the article itself is full of uncivil vitriolic hyperbolic writing. Sums up the problem very well.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      You must be reading a different article than I just did. All it does is identifying the vitriol of the homosexual activists, the gay fallacies of logic, and the threats to liberty. That’s truth not vitriol. But the truth is hate to those who hate the truth.

      • Dealing-with-idiots

        One example : Hopefully, this simple lesson in Logic 101 will prove beneficial for those who either slept through their human reproduction class in high school or who are apparently suffering from deficiencies in rationality.
        If we can’t agree that such writing goes against what Carson is calling for, then I think Carson’s premise is lost on his followers.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          When Carson says gay marriage is like 2+2=5, that means he thinks it goes against logic and rationality. The comment you don’t like (which is only ONE comment, by the way) just spells it out more clearly. It’s truth in it’s bluntest form. Certainly not the same as what the gay activists did to people of faith in California during Prop 8 (vandalism, theft of Prop 8 signs, smashed windows, sending white powder to Mormon temples, beating people up, getting people fired, picketing their places of employment, spitting and peeing on people, barging into churches and disturbing their services, and hundreds of others terrible things.) Better get your gay house in order before you start condemning articles like this.

          • Dealing-with-idiots

            My house is in order (not sure it is a gay house lol) which Is why I was pointing out the irony of the article’s tone (negative, extremist) which is in contrast to the proposed civil discourse of Carson. You are more aligned with the article’s author it appears since you were not able to engage civilly.

      • garybryson

        Wouldn’t you be a little upset if a group of religious bigots were doing everything in their power to keep you from being married? Gay fallacies of logic and threats to liberty? How utterly ridiculous! Just your opinions wacko jacko.

        • Truth Offends

          Nobody is stopping any two (or more) people from making a lifetime commitment to one another.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Which this article states as well. They just like to demonize those who care about true marriage by misrepresenting our position (a.k.a. lying).

          • garybryson

            No misrepresentation. You are trying, pitifully, to keep homosexuals from marrying..correct? Yes. Your position is one of shoving your religious views down everyone’s throat irregardless of their own religious convictions. Not everyone follows your magic man. Got it?

          • RhondaStar

            We don’t follow a magic man. You follow the fantasies of flawed man.

          • Scott Lanway

            No, you follow the biggest monster in all of fiction—”jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

          • RhondaStar

            Oh, I’m so impressed by your big words, but you are not describing my God. That’s your deranged caricature of God.

          • Scott Lanway

            They’re actually the words of Richard Dawkins from “The God Delusion,” but he was still plenty accurate. You worship a beastly creature that, if the Bible were true, would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people on the low end and inciting some of the worst atrocities in recorded human history. Your god is undeserving of respect from sane people.

          • vorpal

            If Satan and Yahweh exist, I’ll take my chances with Satan, thanks very much. Yahweh makes him look like a cute and innocent kitten by comparison.

          • Scott Lanway

            Someone actually posted a comparison of how many deaths God and Satan are each responsible for in the whole of the Bible, and it came out to like 20 million-plus for God…and ten for Satan. And he needed God’s permission for those.

          • RhondaStar

            You need to read the article: Debunking Lies About The Bible: God and Genocide on BarbWire.

            And if our God was as bad as you and Dawkins claimed, then he would have already struck you with a lightning bolt.

          • Scott Lanway

            And yet here I am, un-electrified. Which suggests one of many possibilities, including:
            (a) your god doesn’t exist;
            (b) he exists but he’s not omnipotent and thus is not a god;
            or (c) he exists, but he’s not what you think he is and he doesn’t give a rip about us squishy meatbags.

          • RhondaStar

            Option 4: He exists, is omnipotent, and very merciful — unlike the lies of Dawkins and those who believe him.

          • Scott Lanway

            Yay, I’ve been spared the wrath of a mythical monster for calling him a monster to his nonexistent face!

          • Scott Lanway

            Does the article debunk God’s attempt at outright omnicide? (aka Noah and the flood)

          • RhondaStar

            You don’t understand the severity of sin. The people of Noah’s time were very wicked and given 120 years to repent in response to Noah’s preaching. And I bet you don’t feel the same way about the doctors who have murdered 55 million unborn babies in America alone, which is way more than the population during the time of Noah.

          • Kyle

            He drowned millions of innocent children for the sins of their parents, Rhonda.

          • RhondaStar

            So, I’ll take that as a no answer on the 55 million innocent babies. Apparently, you think it’s okay when people play God (by taking life), but it’s a terrible evil when God plays God.

          • Kyle

            The women who have availed of abortion since it legality was declared don’t claim to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent Gods… You believe in a genocidal monster and call it God Rhonda…

          • RhondaStar

            Then these women shouldn’t be acting like they are omnipotent and omniscient.

          • Kyle

            They are not. Unlike your God, who seems to believe that might makes right…

          • Scott Lanway

            Also, it’s not a baby until it’s born.

          • RhondaStar

            Even one second before it’s born?

            And I would call anyone who feels the way you do or who has an abortion a monster.

          • Kyle

            Rhonda, what kind of being doles out infinite punishments for finite crimes?

          • Jack Brown

            And yet @scottlanway:disqus isn’t going to cast you in a lake of fire for calling him a monster, so already, he’s more merciful than your object of worship.

          • RhondaStar

            God is both merciful and wrathful. In the spiritual realm sin is not finite in nature.

            Do you think Hitler deserves the lake of fire or the same fate as every other sinner? Just wondering how far you go with your thinking.

          • Kyle

            Omnibenevolent beings are incapable of wrath.

            Hitler deserves a very long stint in a lake of fire, but not even he deserves an eternity there.

            But the real travesty if your God is real is that he might not even be there now, all he had to do a second prior to his death was repent and accept Jesus as his personal Lord™ and Savior™ and he’s home free no questions asked, because in your religion faith is more important than mercy or justice.

          • Scott Lanway

            Rhonda just can’t realize that any argument for the existence of her invisible sky wizard makes him look a bit of a dick.

          • RhondaStar

            So, mercy is now a bad thing…if a person repents? Make up your mind. God is either merciful or not. And mercy is either good or it’s not.

          • Kyle

            Commuting a murderers death sentence is merciful, allowing that murderer to walk scot-free is not.

          • Red Mann

            What mercy? Any mercy that exists comes from humans, as does all evil, no demons, no devil, no heaven and no hell.

          • Red Mann

            The god of your religion is a made up entity and used to control the masses for the priests and their bosses the politicians. Originally gods were used to explain what humans saw around them since they had no clue. Then they were used to wield power over the tribe, and get fed for doing nothing. The political leadership soon realized this was a great way of control. The rest is, an unsavory, history. All of your gods supposed power over the physical world has been removed by science, all that is left is a few dusty corners that science has yet to clean out.

          • Scott Lanway

            Lake of fire would be too good for her. My style’s more “forced to listen to nails on chalkboards for a century.”

          • Red Mann

            Since there most likely is no god, one cannot play god. However, by your lights, it’s OK for your god to kill whomever he wants, as many as he wants and as often as he wants, for any reason he wants. Christians claim tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters are god’s punishment for sinning. Strangely enough, the killing is random, although a lot of tornados sweep through the Bible belt every year. In short the god you believe is a pretty unsavory character, a character that condemns humans for an eternity of unspeakable torture for insufficiently kissing the divine keister.

          • Scott Lanway

            You’re moving the goalposts, dearie. Answer me straight up. Does it address his attempts to cleanse the planet of ALL LIFE (that’s omnicide) except one multicentenarian and his family in an impossibly sized boat with two of every animal?

          • MDB

            …and there is NO WAY >10,000 species of birds alone X 2(that’s 20,000) flew above the flooded planet for over two weeks NON-STOP flight, without any dry land to rest upon, or food to eat (especially for those non sea-food eating species)

          • Red Mann

            Even most of the fish would have died due to the necessary changes in the ocean’s salinity. Not to mention the energy of all that falling water would have generated enough heat to boil the oceans.

          • Red Mann

            Since the concept of sin is a human construct as is religion itself it cannot justify such horrendous slaughter. Fortunately, most of those horror stories of the OT were spun out of whole cloth.
            You forced birthers love to label abortion murder, well many people don’t agree with you. Main stream Protestant, who didn’t have much to say about abortion, joined the Catholics on this issue when the Christian leaders of the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition got into politics in a big way and saw this as a means to gen up a lot of votes. The Bible itself doesn’t have much to say about abortion except the penalty (fine) for causing one by striking a women and how to create an abortion by a priest, so you can shove your emotional claim.

          • Kyle

            What did your God demand be done with the children of the Amalekites?

          • Scott Lanway

            Ooh ooh! I know this one!

          • Kyle

            Yes you Scott… What did Rhonda’s God demand be done with the children of the Amalekites?

          • Scott Lanway

            That they be put to the sword with their parents by Saul!

          • Kyle

            Well done Scott, that’s right!

          • Scott Lanway

            Yay! What do I win?

          • Kyle

            A like! LOL

          • Scott Lanway

            I’ll take it gladly. :D

          • MDB

            for our contestant Scott, tell him what he has won Pat;
            “He’s won a the extra-large basket of garocerriees” :-)

          • Red Mann

            But Saul didn’t follow orders and was severely punished for it. “You didn’t kill them all Saul. You will suffer!” Yean, I want to follow that guy. The one that makes an offer you can’t refuse, “blindly believe in me and live in heaven forever, don’t and suffer forever.”

          • Kyle

            A God that is about as loving as a narcissistic sociopath…

          • Jack Brown

            Me too, and I’m guessing Rhonda’s response will contain the words, “out”, “of” and “context”.

          • Clive Johnson

            “Big words”? Those are words any high school graduate should know.

            And, it’s hard to argue with that characterization of your god in the Bible. He was one wicked fellow.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Well, that’s OK; when you fling around terms like “gaystapo” you’re not describing the GLBT community — that’s your deranged caricature of it. Doesn’t stop you, now does it?

          • garybryson

            I won’t go through this with you. They are in fact denying gay couples the benefits awarded to hetero married couples. These laws will change that. Thanks for the ridiculous comment.

          • Steven Schwartz

            No, just receiving the support and benefit from the secular state that other people can receive, purely on the basis of their chosen partner.

          • Truth Offends

            Right. It’s NOT “marriage” the pro-homosexuality movement wants for homosexuals! It’s “support and benefits”!
            It’s not about love. It’s not about marriage. It’s about forcing America to affirm homosexuality and it’s about money.

          • Steven Schwartz

            It’s not about love. It’s not about marriage.

            So you’d be OK with the removal of all civil benefits to “married” couples? Because that’s the logical extension of what you’re advocating here.

            Either marriage is entirely separated from the state, or it is not; if it isn’t, then SSM deserves the same support from the state, according to the law.

            So don’t tell GLBT folks what “it’s about” — you’re not one of them, you don’t know.

            And there are *lots* of LGBT folks who are on their second marriage by now — having “married” outside the acceptance of the law, and now doing so again, when the state can recognize it. The original *point* you were trying to make was “no one is preventing people from making a lifelong commitment to each other” — as if that was all that was important.

          • Truth Offends

            Why should two homosexual men receive the same benefits that married men and women receive?

          • Steven Schwartz

            Because if they are in a relationship of similar commitment, it serves the rational interest of the state as much to provide them with that benefit as an aid to their stability as it does to provide the mixed-gender couple. The benefit to the state is identical, and there is no reason outside of anti-GLBT bias to deny it.

          • Truth Offends

            What “rational interest of the state” is there in fostering stable relationships b/w two homosexual men?

          • Steven Schwartz

            It is demonstrable that people in stable relationships are better off economically, psychologically, and emotionally; it is in the state’s interest to encourage such relationships. In addition, it lessens the burden on the state in terms of things like medical and old-age care, as well. In addition, if there are any children in the male-male couple, either through adoption or children of a previous relationship, it provides them with a much more stable environment growing up, which is a demonstrable benefit.

          • Truth Offends

            You said in your other post that, “the benefit to the state” that stable homosexual relationships provide is “identical” to the benefit that marital relationships b/w men and women provide.
            What “benefit to the state” do you think two homosexual men could provide that is “identical” to the benefit to the state that married men and women provide—that of procreation AND providing children a family with both a mother and father?

          • Kyle

            20% or so of heterosexual marriages are childless, either by design or due to infertility and/or sterility. According to your own logic, what possible interest is the state serving in continuing to recognize these relationships?

          • Steven Schwartz

            Ah — now you’re shifting the goalposts.

            The benefit to any children of the couple is identical, since there has been no established research to show that the “mother and father” benefit, as opposed to the “two stable parents” benefit exists. That one set of couples would have a greater chance of creating kids from inside it is not, as has been repeatedly established by the case of non-fertile or voluntarily non-reproductive married couples, relevant.

          • Truth Offends

            How ridiculous! I’m NOT “shifting the goalposts” when you are the one who set the so-called goalposts when YOU said “the benefit to the state is identical”!

            First, my question was:
            What “benefit to the state” do you think two homosexual men could provide that is “identical” to the benefit to the state that married men and women provide—that of procreation AND providing children a family with both a mother and a father?
            You talked only about raising children.
            The benefit to the state that married men and women provide is procreation AND providing children mother and a father. So, can you come up with a “benefit to the state” that is “identical” to both procreation AND providing children a family with both a mother and a father?

            Second, you are delusional if you think two homosexual men can provide children a benefit that is “identical” to the benefit a mother and a father would provide children.
            Here’s a clue:
            A family headed by a mother and a father is different (NOT “identical”) to a family headed by two men.

          • Steven Schwartz

            A family headed by a mother and a father is different (NOT “identical”) to a family headed by two men.

            Here’s a clue for you: In the eyes of the state, they are close enough to identical that it doesn’t matter.

            As I have said before, if you want to tie “marriage” so closely to child-rearing and procreation, you need to explain why marriage is granted to those for whom this benefit is just as certainly *not* coming to the state as it is for same-sex marriage. (I do notice, BTW, that you carefully make it “two homosexual men” — which means you do realize that a lesbian couple can, with sperm donation — a technique used by mixed-gender couples as well — reproduce.

            If you really want, I can replace “identical” with “sufficiently equivalent” — would that help you get past your tying-yourself-in-knots one a word, or would it suffice in having you go “I’ve won on this minor point, now i can shut up?”

          • Truth Offends

            You said the relationships are “identical”. If that isn’t what you meant, that’s your problem, not mine. You shouldn’t criticize me for your own poor choice of words.
            But, anyway, I guess you cannot come up with a “benefit to the state” that two homosexual men could offer that is “identical” or “sufficiently equivalent to” the benefit to the state that married men and women can offer—that of procreation AND providing children a family with both a mother and a father.

          • Steven Schwartz

            But, anyway, I guess you cannot come up with a “benefit to the state” that two homosexual men could offer that is “identical” or “sufficiently equivalent to” the benefit to the state that married men and women can offer—that of procreation AND providing children a family with both a mother and a father.

            I did — the benefit to the state that is, under equal protection laws, “sufficiently equivalent to” the one you describe is providing children in SSM-households with the support and stability that provides them with a better chance at a good future. Your choice of adding additional alleged benefits — “a mother and a father” — versus “parents” is not enough to make a distinction in the eyes of the state. Sorry.

            The irony, of course, is that has been pointed out, even if you were to win this argument, the state needs a rational reason to *object* to marriages, rather than an overwhelming rationale to *support* them. So, saying “You are wrong on this one point”, while ignoring my others — general stability, etc. — is conceding my larger point in accordance with the law.

          • Truth Offends

            (1) When did the state say that “SSM-households” are “sufficiently equivalent to” households headed by a father and a mother? Or, words to that effect?
            (2) Still can’t come up with anything “identical” or “sufficiently equivalent to” procreation (and family with both a mother and a father)?

          • Kyle

            If you are just going to ignore or deny anything which he does “come up with”, why are you even asking? You are clearly have no interest in the answer…

          • Steven Schwartz

            1) When they ruled that there was no rational basis for denying SSM rights.

            Similarly, when it was agreed that GLBT folk in same-sex relationships could adopt.

            2) Your lack of reading comprehension is no longer my problem.

          • Truth Offends

            (1) To borrow one of your favorite phrases: “citation please”
            (2) My reading comprehension is fine. You cannot come up with anything.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Given that you repeatedly ignore what I say, no, I’m not going to go digging for more things for you to ignore.

            But you can figure this one out logically:

            If there were a significant difference, from the state’s point of view, then surely *one* of the many lawyers SSM opponents have hired would have thought to bring this point up — and would thereby have won a rational-basis argument.

            They have not.

            Ergo, either you are vastly smarter than all the lawyers who have been working for years on anti-SSM law and never figured this out, or the state considers it sufficiently close as to not qualify as sufficient reason to discriminate.

            Oh, and repeatedly saying “You cannot come up with anything” is not a rebuttal of what was said.

          • Truth Offends

            Just b/c I chose to not “rebut” what you’ve said (little more than distractions) does not change the fact that you could not come up with a “benefit to the state” that could be offered by two homosexual men that would be “identical” or “sufficiently equivalent to” the benefit to the state offered by married men and women—that of procreation AND providing children with both a mother and a father.

            And, now, by not citing a source for your claim that “the state” supposedly said “SSM-households” are “sufficiently equivalent to” households headed by married men and women (or words ot that effect), then that claim is
            baseless and should be taken as only your opinion—in which case you’ve provided even LESS “equivalency” for those relationships than you did a few hours ago!

            Furthermore, you said it was “when they ruled that there was no rational basis for denying SSM rights” that “the state” said that “SSM-households” are “sufficiently equivalent to” households headed by a father and a mother (or words to that effect). I checked the Windsor (DOMA) opinion, and the Supreme Court did not say anything even close to that in its opinion on Windsor–or at least I could not find anything close to that in that opinion.

            So, without providing any evidence for your claims, it seems to me that you think that the “benefit to the state” offered by two homosexual men is “identical” or “sufficiently equivalent to” the benefit to the state offered by married men and women simply b/c you think it is. And that you think “SSM-households” are “identical” or “sufficiently equivalent to” households headed by married men and women simply b/c you think they are.

          • Kyle

            What interest does the state have in continuing to recognize the marriages of ~20% of heterosexual marriages which are childless by design or due to infertility or sterility?

            Institutional recognition and legal protection has been shown to make same-sex unions more stable, this is a very good thing for any children being raised in these households because the social science shows us that children from stable 2 parent households fair far better in all areas of adjustment. Better adjusted children makes for better adjusted and more productive adult citizens.

          • John R

            Since when do straight people have baby’s to benefit the state? Are you for real?

          • Clive Johnson

            What Steven said.

          • RhondaStar

            More like a perversity indoctrination environment for children.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Sorry, your religious animus doesn’t count for anything in a legal discussion, but thank you for playing! Try paying a bit more attention next time, and maybe you can contribute something useful.

          • Kyle

            The state does not need to serve a rational interest in allowing liberty, it needs to serve one in restricting it.

          • Clive Johnson

            Just that–stable relationships between homosexual men. Just like straights, couples are better able to weather financial storms, can have less stress in their lives, and have someone to look after them if their health declines. I.e., awful, ungodly and unbiblical things, I know.

          • John R

            What rational interest of the state is there in fostering stable relationships b/w a man and a woman?

            Why can’t you see it’s the same thing?

          • John R

            Why should we NOT receive the same benefits? I have been with my same sex partner for 32 years, longer then most straight marriages last, so give me just one good reason why I should not receive the same benefits as a married man and woman?

          • John R

            No, the question is why shouldn’t they receive the same benifits?

          • garybryson

            Nope. Nobody is forcing affirmation of anything except by the govt. Take your story walking

          • MarkSebree

            But they are stopping two consenting, single, unrelated adults who want to get get married from getting married. And by denying them the right to get married, they are denying them access to over 1100 federal laws, privileges, rights, and responsibilities that other people have access to without any problem. And that is not even counting the laws at the state level.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Hey, scary gary, gay “marriage” ain’t marriage…more like a mirage than marriage. So, nobody is trying to stop people from real marriage, just counterfeit marriage.

          • Cheyenne W.

            You can define the word “marriage” any way you wish. I only care as to how the state defines it.

          • garybryson

            The laws of 21 states and counting say your wrong mr judiciary. The great thing is that your opinions don’t count or matter.

          • Cheyenne W.

            Exactly…

          • Kyle

            Thankfully for those couples involved, your opinions don’t actually matter…

      • Steven Schwartz

        Any article referring to the “gaystapo” has lost its ability to bemoan the lack of “civil discourse”.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          An accurate description is not hatred. They need to have their actions reflected back at them. If they don’t like being called the gaystapo, then stapo acting like it.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Considering they are not secret, and are not of the state, and are not police, none of the elements of “gestapo” are present.

            And if you can’t see why calling someone the “gaystapo” does not qualify as “civil discourse”, you’ve completely lost touch with reality.

            Tell me: Do you consider calling people like Carson “American Taliban” is “civil”? What about “lunatics”? “Christofascists”? If any of those aren’t “civil” to you, then you need to reconsider your defense of “gaystapo”. And remember; the key element is “civil”. If you’re going to argue that “I can call you any names I like because they’re true, but you’re not engaging in civil discourse because you use names i don’t like”, you’ve missed the point of “civil discourse”.

          • RhondaStar

            The fact that the state, employers, the media, and the judiciary bow to their every demand, they definitely do qualify as the Gaystapo.

          • Clive Johnson

            Or, are the gays just like slavery, or Hitler, or communism….Obamacare? It gets so confusing to keep these all straight.

          • Steven Schwartz

            You really don’t get it, do you?

            Clearly, to you, “civil discourse” means “I get to say what I want, and people I disagree with should shut up, or at least be respectful of my particular sacred cows.”

            I doubt you would consider it civil discourse to refer to you as a deluded, moronic zombie-worshipper; yet so long as you agree with a slur, it’s fine.

            You are the pot calling the snowfall black.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      And whether they’ve heard about Alinsky or not, the major activists have heard of him. And all of them are utilizing his tactics….even if they don’t realize it.

    • thisoldspouse

      Would donating to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to protecting traditional marriage be your idea of “uncivil discourse?” Our would the reaction to Brendan Eich be closer to that mark?

      • Kyle

        Donating towards stripping legally married couples of their existing rights against their will and without their consent doesn’t seem very civil to me…

        • RhondaStar

          Stripping the electorate of the right to determine their own laws is very uncivil and unamerican. Your comment could also be said by polygamists, etc.

          • Kyle

            As the courts have since decided, the electorate should never have had the “right” to vote to deny homosexuals equal protection and due process to being with… Who’d have thought that citizens have constitutional guarantees which are above popularity contests…

      • garybryson

        Eich stepped down pedo boy. Nobody forced his RESIGNATION. How ridiculous.

        • RhondaStar

          He stepped down before it got to that. But the homofascists wanted his head — just like GLAAD did with Phil Robertson.

          • Kyle

            “Just like GLAAD did with Phil Robertson”

            GLAAD never called for A&E to cancel Duck Dynasty, nor did they call for them to suspend Mr. Robertson, they publicly criticized his remarks, do you believe that they shouldn’t have had that right?

          • RhondaStar

            Don’t agree at all about your assessment of what GLAAD did.

          • Kyle

            Then perhaps you can provide a link to where GLAAD demanded Phil Roberson’s head, literally or figuratively?

      • Dealing-with-idiots

        My comment was clear that is was addressing the article’s tone. Very snarky, demeaning. Is that the way to civil discourse? The rhetoric of the prop 8 campaign was extremely hateful at the time ( my perspective as someone who had no skin in the game). The backlash against the CEO was over the top on some levels too. I do think that when one supports a group that seeks to deny people rights because they are different does reveal something negative about ones character. However I seek to understand what motivates people to do that rather than just say they are wrong or evil, etc. I don’t spread lies about them. However, on here we see lies spread about gay people on an hourly basis.

        • thisoldspouse

          Thanks for at least acknowledging the overblown, uncivil backlash against Eich. Most leftist posters here won’t even give that aspect any consideration.

          • Dealing-with-idiots

            Thank you for saying that. I wouldn’t consider myself leftist but . On here I probably am lol. Now if we can only v get the right v wing people on here to acknowledge that most if what they write about gay people is in fact false propaganda we will be making progress!

        • RhondaStar

          I think it says something about your character when you criticize Eich for engaging in the democratic system. Liberals can give to their causes and so can conservatives. We believe gay “marriage” is detrimental to society and have every right to act accordingly without having our character questioned.

          • Kyle

            You certainly have every right to advocate that certain law abiding segments of society be denied equal protection of the law, you have every right to advocate that they be brutally executed at dawn if that is what you believe, what you do not however have is every right to evate the social consequences of these odious opinions and positions.

  • Truth Offends

    “Only recently, we reaffirmed the view that the equal protection clause does not prevent the legislature from recognizing ‘degrees of evil’ by our ruling in Tigner v. Texas, that ‘the Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.’”
    ~~SCOTUS (Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, citations omitted)

    • Jack Brown

      You’re quoting a landmark case which ruled that forced sterilizations for convicted felons are unconstitutional.

      Even worse, you’re cherry-picking your quote. Justice Douglas went on to say, “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
      civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
      very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and
      devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or
      types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear.
      There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches.”

      Skinner v. Oklahoma doesn’t really bolster your stance; if anything, it hurts it.

      • garybryson

        TO spends it’s time here playing word games with other posters. It’s no wonder that the article was cherry picked. Typical.

      • Truth Offends

        FYI: In the quote you chose (I mean, “cherry picked”) you’ll notice the Supreme Court did NOT say that “marriage” is a “basic civil right.”
        Also–If you(!) did not “cherry pick” that quote, you might have found that what the Supreme Court said in its Skinner opinion was that what they found to be a “basic civil right” was NOT “marriage”! What the Court found to be a “basic civil right” is “THE RIGHT TO HAVE OFFSPRING” (something the Court tied to marriage)!
        The Court tied “the right to have offspring” (“procreation”) to marriage! And, two homosexual men cannot procreate! And, relationships b/w homosexual men are most certainly NOT “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” But, relationships b/w men and women are!

        Another FYI: The quote (what you call “cherry picked”) from the SCOTUS opinion that I chose to use does not change the truth of the quote.
        “Only recently, we reaffirmed the view that the equal protection clause does not prevent the legislature from recognizing ‘degrees of evil’ by our ruling in Tigner v. Texas, that ‘the Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.’”
        ~SCOTUS, Skinner v. Oklahoma

        The point is, in the Skinner opinion, the Supreme Court said that the “equal protection clause,” the “Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.”
        If I recall correctly, SCOTUS in its DOMA opinion did not address this point.

        • Jack Brown

          In the name of everything that is holy, I hope that you do not make your living arguing the law.

          1) To say you are reaching or grasping at straws to use Skinner as the basis for your argument is to be kind.

          2) The right to have offspring, which you deemed necessary to put in all caps for some reason is a right that is not recognized by our courts. To this day, Buck v. Bell has still not been overturned. Skinner did not fully overturn Buck v. Bell. The next time a forced sterilization case comes up before SCOTUS will be an appropriate time to whip out that Skinner quote, or better yet, you can pull out Oliver Wendell Holmes’ “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” quote, if you are arguing for the side of preserving tradition.

          3) SCOTUS did not use Skinner as a precedent in Windsor because there have been more relevant Equal Protection Clause cases in the seven decades since Skinner was decided. You see, between Skinner and Windsor, this thing known as “The Civil Rights Movement” happened, and there were several important decisions dealing with Equal Rights. (Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia would be a good starting point) Maybe you should bone up on it before getting on the internet and pretending you have an inkling of knowledge about the Equal Protection Clause. You should be embarrassed, really.

          4) Please, just stop. You might as well fall back on the trusty “eww, gay marriage is icky!” argument, because even that is more convincing than watching you pretend to know something about the law. Quite frankly, someone born with no nose could do a better job describing the smell of freshly-baked chocolate chip cookies than you can of explaining the Equal Protection Clause.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Quite frankly, someone born with no nose could do a better job describing the smell of freshly-baked chocolate chip cookies than you can of explaining the Equal Protection Clause.

            I love this phrasing. Well done for the entire post, but this is just … right. ;)

          • Truth Offends

            What is your problem?

            This thread was started by me simply posting a quote from an opinion of the Supreme Court in 1942. That’s ALL I did. Nothing else. And look at your response.

            First, you jumped on me saying I “cherry picked” the quote. And then you, yourself, “cherry picked” a quote (wrongly) making it look as if SCOTUS was saying “marriage” was “one of the basic civil rights of man.”
            Then, when I pointed out the fact that you(!) cherry picked
            a quote from the same opinion, and I correctly stated that what SCOTUS said was a “basic civil right” was NOT “marriage” but the “right to have offspring,” you jumped on me even further, and more harshly!

            I was NOT “making an argument,” let alone, “using Skinner as a basis for an argument.”!
            I was NOT “arguing the law”!
            I was NOT trying to appear as if I am some sort of expert in
            the law!
            And, I was NOT “trying to explain the Equal Protection Clause”!

            All I did was quote from an opinion of the Supreme Court.
            And, look at your response! If anyone should be “embarrassed,” it should be you, not me.

          • Jack Brown

            What is my problem?

            It’s not understanding the Equal Protection Clause. That would be your problem.

            No worries, I understand. The Dunning-Kruger Effect makes you incapable of addressing the issue and now you have to deflect, deflect, deflect.

            Also, I would like to apologize to you. All this time. was operating under the assumption that your screen name, “Truth Offends” reflected some sort of confidence in your ability to defend your beliefs.

            Apparently that’s not the case, as you retreat to the Fainting Couch when your beliefs are challenged. Good grief, I’d expect a more mature response from a teenage girl who was just told that yes, that dress does indeed make you look fat.

            I would suggest that you look for a more heavily moderated forum so that you can over-confidently express your views without them actually being challenged.

          • Truth Offends

            LOL!
            Other than quoting what the Supreme Court said, I did NOT express any “view” or “belief” about Skinner or the Equal Protection Clause! So, you’re actually trying to “challenge” something that exists only in your imagination!
            Yes. You DO have a problem!

          • Jack Brown

            Um… you do know that all anyone has to do is scroll up and see that you did, in fact, express a view on the Skinner quote and how it — in your mind — applies to Winsdor?

            Or did you put scare quotes around the words “view” and “belief” to emphasize that your opinions are merely hollow and without substance and should therefore be ignored?

            BTW, you have the option to edit your own comments, so maybe now is the time to simply go back and change them to random words like “blah blah blah” and “yadda yadda”, since that’s what you’re telling us you’ve been saying all along.

            If you’re a female, I apologize in advance, but it’s time for you to man up. You posted the Skinner quote and failed miserably to defend your use of the quote. It’s not that big of a deal, really. You were wrong, so what’s stopping you from simply admitting it and moving on? You’re not Fonzie are you? (Yeah, I know I’m showing my age now.)

          • Truth Offends

            Tell me. What “view” or “belief” about Skinner did I supposedly express?

          • Jack Brown

            Do you really want to do this? The Dunning-Kruger is strong with you, good sir. But since you asked (and seem pathologically unable to scroll up and read your own words), here goes:

            FYI: In the quote you chose (I mean, “cherry picked”) you’ll notice the Supreme Court did NOT say that “marriage” is a “basic civil right.”
            Also–If you(!) did not “cherry pick” that quote, you might have found that what the Supreme Court said in its Skinner opinion was that what they found to be a “basic civil right” was NOT “marriage”! What the Court found to
            be a “basic civil right” is “THE RIGHT TO HAVE OFFSPRING” (something theCourt tied to marriage)!
            The Court tied “the right to have offspring” (“procreation”) to marriage! And, two homosexual men cannot
            procreate! And, relationships b/w homosexual men are most certainly NOT “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” But, relationships b/w men and women are!

            Another FYI: The quote (what you call “cherry picked”) from the SCOTUS opinion that I chose to use
            does not change the truth of the quote. “Only recently, we reaffirmed the view that the equal protection clause does not prevent the legislature from recognizing ‘degrees of evil’ by our ruling in Tigner v. Texas, that ‘the Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were
            the same.’”
            ~SCOTUS, Skinner v. Oklahoma

            The point is, in the Skinner opinion, the Supreme Court said that the “equal protection clause,” the “Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.” If I recall correctly, SCOTUS in its DOMA opinion did not address this point.

            That is what you expressed. In. Your. Own. Words.

            Now, if you want to know what I think of the “views” and “beliefs” you expressed in the quoted text, scroll up and see my response to the above quoted text as originally posted by you.

            By the way, congratulations. I’ve been on the internet since 1995 and I don’t think I’ve come across anyone as willfully obtuse as you are being during this discussion. This is absolutely mind-boggling.

          • Truth Offends

            OK.
            (1) I quoted the Supreme Court.
            (2) I correctly stated that in the Skinner decision, the Supreme Court said people have a “right to have offspring” and that they tied that to “marriage”.
            Now, which “view” or “belief” about Skinner or the Equal Protection Clause did I express that you wrongly criticized me for supposedly not being able to defend?

          • Jack Brown

            You know what? If you want to double down on the Obtuse Act, go right ahead. My response is right up there for you to read, yet you whined about it the first time I posted it with your “All I did was post a quote” routine, and now you’re asking me to rebut your argument… an argument that you’re simultaneously claiming you didn’t make.

            If it makes you feel better to jump up and down and claim victory, by all means do so, but for me, this has long passed the point of being a discussion of any sorts. I feel more like I’m engaging in an act of extreme cruelty, much like pulling the wings off of flies.

            Best of luck to you.

          • Kyle

            Truth Offends (very apt name) likes to ask questions and then completely ignore the answers that he is given…

          • Jack Brown

            It’s positively surreal. Like I said earlier, I’ve been on the internet since ’95 and he(?) is the most obtuse person who has ever crossed my path.

            It’s getting to the point where the pro-LGBT rights people outnumber the anti-LGBT crowd at this site. I have to wonder… is it because we’re putting forth better arguments, or is it because most rational people simply don’t want to be associated with the likes of T.O. and that “Ray Jesus Son of God” dude?

          • Truth Offends

            Yes. It is “surreal”!
            ——————————
            You: You won’t defend your beliefs about Skinner/Equal Protection Clause!
            Me: Which beliefs about Skinner/Equal Protection Clause do you think I won’t defend.
            You: Here’s everything you said.
            Me: I didn’t express belief about Skinner/Equal Protection Clause I’m not willing to defend. Which beliefs do you think I won’t defend.
            You: You’re obtuse!
            Me: Give me ONE example–one belief or view I hold about Skinner or the Equal Protection Clause that you think I won’t defend!
            You: “crickets”
            ——————————
            Yeah—”great argument”! LOL!

          • Kyle

            You: Quote Skinner…
            Jack: Skinner doesn’t help your point, it actually hurts it and here is why…
            You: I didn’t have a point…
            Jack: Em, okay…
            You: I win!

            There, Fixed It For You :)

          • Truth Offends

            LOL! You’re close!
            ———————————–
            Me: Quote Skinner
            Jack: Skinner doesn’t help your point, it hurts it.
            Me: I didn’t have a point.
            Jack: Yes you did. You’re too stupid to know it. I win!
            ———————————–
            There. Fixed it for YOU! LOL! :)

          • Kyle

            At least you admitted that your comments are pointless, that’s progress…

          • Truth Offends

            I thought the quote was interesting and thought others might agree. That’s why I posted it.

          • Jack Brown

            Me: Quote Skinner
            Jack: Skinner doesn’t help your point, it hurts it.
            Me: I didn’t have a point.
            Jack: Yes you did. You’re too stupid to know it. I win!
            Jack to others: I was awesome, wasn’t I?

            As I mentioned before. Anyone can scroll up and see your own words. You didn’t resort to the “I didn’t have a point” argument until after you had posted a wall of text defending your reasons for originally posting the quote.

            But as Kyle mentioned, thanks for at least giving us the heads up that your comments are inconsequential. I will keep that in mind and try to avoid making the mistake of assuming you have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion.

          • Truth Offends

            OK. I’m now beginning to think you are an idiot.
            I did NOT defend my reasons for posting the quote! (Scroll up to see that!) I just now told Kyle why I posted it. LOL!
            Wait. Maybe you’re not an idiot. Maybe you’re mentally ill.

          • Truth Offends

            OK. So you harshly criticize me for supposedly not being able to defend my “views” and/or “beliefs” about Skinner and the Equal Protection Clause. Quoting the Supreme Court is not something that needs defending–unless you think the Supreme Court didn’t say what I said it did! LOL!

            I did not express any view or belief about the Skinner opinion or about the Equal Protection Clause that you wrongly criticized me for supposedly not being able to defend. Period.
            But, you obviously think I did. Please. Give me ONE example. If you cannot give me ONE example, then that would be because there aren’t ANY examples of a view or belief I expressed about Skinner or the Equal Protection Clause that you think I cannot defend.

          • Kyle

            Why do you continue to ask questions when you are just going to ignore the answers you are given?

            Clearly (in your mind) you’re right and anyone who has the audacity to point out your mistakes, lies or distortions is just in denial of how right you are…

          • Truth Offends

            If you are going to accuse me of making mistakes, lying, or distorting things, the least you could do is give examples of where I supposedly did those things. But, you won’t (and can’t) do that b/c I didn’t do those things you wrongly accuse me of doing.

        • garybryson

          Sure you did. you purposefully left it out in order to make your point. This what xtians do daily. Cherry pick verses and research to further their cause

  • Cheyenne W.

    You just keep writing these nice articles to stir the Neanderthal base, and we’ll keep on winning in court, and contrary to the author’s assertion, at the ballot box as well. It’s time that ya’ll face the facts in that the conclusion is foregone, namely that you have no legitimate LEGAL argument to put forward. How many more judges have to rule in our favor before you quit using the word “rogue” before “judge” in every single announcement that you have yet lost again, the most recent time at a Court of Appeals? Let’s face it, within 2 years or less the US Supreme Court will hear one of these cases and decide once and for all, and given the track record of SSM, we all know which way the Court will rule. But I guess since it’s a “rogue” court it won’t matter will it?

    • Truth Offends

      Five justices on the Supreme Court set the precedent for all the lower courts. Basically, as it stands now, FIVE judges decided to force America to affirm homosexuality–by affirming “gay marriage”.

      • Cheyenne W.

        Unfortunately for you, that’s how it works.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          That’s how it’s broken.

          • Cheyenne W.

            Is it only “broken” when you lose?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            No, actually, it’s broken when they’re wrong and act like tyrants.

          • Cheyenne W.

            Do I need to directly quote the 14th Amendment for you, especially the part about equal protection of the laws? Also, in your post it should be “they’re” not “their.”

          • garybryson

            Wacko jacko doesn’t believe in the 14th amendment as he is blinded by his relgion

          • Steven Schwartz

            In other words, when you feel they got it right, it’s OK for 5 people to make the decision — when it’s not, it’s not OK.

            Clear enough, thank you.

      • Jack Brown

        That’s how the judicial branch of our government works.

        Basically, as it stands now, NINE judges decided to force America to stop enacting and enforcing Jim Crow laws. Amazing, isn’t it?

        If you don’t like it, write your congressman and have him submit an Amendment to the Constitution that abolishes the SCOTUS and leaves our civil liberties up the whim of the public. I’m sure nothing bad could ever come of that….

        • Jacobus Arminius

          The whim of the public is better than the tyrannical whim of the few.. unelected, unaccountable judges. Don’t you see the risk of putting so much power in the hands of a few? Haven’t you read world history? We’re walking right into a dictatorial trap.

          • Cheyenne W.

            By your reasoning, we would still have segregation all across the South, but I am guessing that wouldn’t bother many of your side.

          • garybryson

            You sir are ridiculous. You cant begin to make me believe that every single judge that has rules against you all is an activist. ROTFLMAO! This mentality is exactly why you all keep losing in both the courts and the court of public opinion. Sad.

          • Jack Brown

            You have got to be kidding me.

            Left to the whim of the public, the minimum wage would enshrined in the constitution at $50.00 an hour and a certain song from Team America: World Police would be our national anthem. (The title of the song would never make it past moderation).

            Yes, the Supreme Court makes bad decision. Dred Scot v. Sanford, Buck v. Bell, Kelo v. New London… I could go on. But I’d rather take my chances with the Supreme Court than with a public who probably thinks “Eminent Domain Abuse” is a Seinfeld episode.

          • Boo

            The Founding Fathers decided that Federal Judges would not be elected. Take it up with them.

          • Mike

            You moron, you think the danger isn’t in mob rule. What a worthless fool you are.

      • Kyle

        Actually 6 judges did in the Romer and Lawrence, Windsor was just the logical out come of these earlier cases.

      • garybryson

        Sorry moron but nobody is asking you to affirm homosexuality. Nobody cares what you think! Gays only want the same rights as you and I. But keep on shrieking if it makes you feel better!

      • L1011

        Exactly like garybryson said, nobody cares what you or anyone else thinks of us, we just want equal treatment under the law. You are still free to attend gay events with your picket signs and bullhorns and yell at us all you want (actually it wouldn’t be a pride event without them), but at the end of the day, all that matters is equal rights.

        • Cheyenne W.

          I was really disappointed in that there was not a single protester at our Pride parade this year. It just doesn’t seem the same without them.

      • ErickMN

        So you’re just FINALLY figuring out how the judicial branch of the government works? No wonder you’re always behind the times with your silly arguments.

      • Mike

        Incorrect, you lying piece of excrement. You hateful bigots are a national minority.

      • John R

        What’s with the “affirm homosexuality”. ?
        Homosexuality has always existed and always will so how can there be a discussion of affirming it or not?

        • Kyle

          It makes about as much sense as saying that the court “affirmed” breathing…

          • John R

            LOL. So true.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      And the in the last case they heard (when they overturned DOMA), contrary to popular opinion, the Supremes did not legalize gay marriage. Instead, they decided that marriage should be up to the states — that’s the people and their elected representatives, not lower courts.

      • Cheyenne W.

        You are correct, but these federal district courts and now, a Court of Appeals has found that the 14th Amendment applies to gays too… Imagine that! I am stupefied that your side goes into court after court with the same arguments and yet loses every single time. It’s like trying the same experiment over and over expecting a different result. Furthermore, many of these judges are conservative Republican appointees.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Except for Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A Republican appointee who voted against your contortions and recent discoveries (out of thin air) regarding the 14th amendment…so not all judges are deceived by the homosexual lies.

          • Cheyenne W.

            We only need a majority, and last time I checked 2 was greater than 1, just as 5 is greater than 4.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Yes, but not my point. This is the first crack in your recent winning streak. Maybe Kelly’s courage will catch on.

          • Cheyenne W.

            Doubtful…

          • Kyle

            Tell me, seeing as Windsor was decided on 5th Amendment due process grounds, what compelling interest do you actually think that the states have in denying married or unmarried same-sex couples equal recognition?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            The best interests of the children. Every study shows that gay “marriages” are less permanent and less faithful than their heterosexual counterparts….deny that if you want, but provide a study that says otherwise. That means more broken families and more societal ills, which are not good for society, and we all have to pay for that.

          • Kyle

            Were child welfare a compelling state interest in the manor that you claim it is, the state would also be forced to serve that compelling interest in banning divorce, co-habitation and routinely evaluating and far more frequently ceasing children from families it deemed subpar, that is a can of worms that not even the most notorious “family” courts have been willing to open… Nice try though. Better luck next time!

            Also ALL of the longitudinal studies into same-sex parenting to date have shown little to no difference in child development and adjustment.

          • Kyle

            Also, same sex couples and homosexual individuals are going to have children through various means whether those couples can marry or not. Thus the court decided in Windsor that those children are more protected when their parents are institutionally protected by law.

          • Ron Swaren

            There can be laws passed against certain kinds of surrogacy. And there should be, because it is in the interests of children, who would not otherwise be born anyway, to not be raised by weirdos. Since, by millions of historic precedents, such ‘marriages” have never been recognized heretofore, the overwhelming judicial weight is against them. What these gay couple are doing, in effect, is taking child hostages.

            And why not restrict them? There are plenty of (moral, if not legal) restrictions placed upon real parents, already.. The reality of fetal substance addiction and transmission of STD’s are abundant demonstration that activities of even normal parents must be restricted where they threaten the well being of the child. A lot of gay/crackpot type arguments suggest that heteros commit the bulk of paedophilia. When a man molests a boy, that by definition is homosexuality. If a woman touches a girl in any form of molestation that is also homosexuality.

            The SSM advocates, apparently, have a little set of arguments that upon closer examination are a type of elaborate whining. Most of it centers upon an imagined constitutional right. The progress of REAL rights has been a function of Protestantism in its evangelical form, so there were underlying MORAL arguments—(in keeping with the Declaration of Independence that our rights are bestowed by the Creator)— that bolstered the legal arguments. In this case, however, the proponents of these spurious rights are motivated by amorality or downright hatred of religions. And the negative effects outweigh the positive ones, and include numerous instances of COMPELLING INTEREST by governments against homosexuality

          • Kyle

            You think that you’re going to be able to ban homosexuals from procreating or adopting when you can’t even successfully ban same-sex marriage anymore? Yeah, good luck with that…

            So you think that the state should ban an institution which has been shown to increase happiness, health, productivity and decrease levels of promiscuity, infidelity and other high risk behaviors in homosexuals because homosexuals who are not married have higher rates of maladjustment issues, promiscuity and high risk behavior? Gee, I wonder why not a single lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage in the courts has ever used that little gem of nonsensical circular reasoning.


            The SSM advocates, apparently, have a little set of arguments that upon closer examination are a type of elaborate whining

            Funny, isn’t that exacty what this entire comment has been? “Elaborate whining”?

          • garybryson

            Abstract
            Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.
            Choke on it jacko! From the American Academy of Pediatrics.

          • garybryson

            From the American Academy of Pediatrics
            Technical Report
            Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian
            Ellen C. Perrin, MD, MA,
            Benjamin S. Siegel, MD,
            the COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Gay propagandists.

          • Kyle

            You’re just going to say that about anything that you disagree with for personal reasons. Why even ask the question if don’t care about the answer?

          • garybryson

            You’re a joke.

          • Scott Lanway

            With no punchline.

          • Steven Schwartz

            As to be expected: All things are to be measured by the Arminian measuring stick: Disagree and you’re a judge? “Activist” Provide data that isn’t in line with his preconceived notion? “Propagandists”.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Don’t believe that for a minute. Children of divorce always are at higher risk…hetero or homo. And there is less permanence with gay couples.

            A. Broken families (of any type) harmful to children and society (welfare, drugs, crime).
            B. More gay broken families.
            C. Therefore, gay “marriage” bad for society and children.

            Choke on that.

          • garybryson

            I knew it would matter what I posted due to your kind being highly allergic to facts. Truth is you’re on the losing side due to your own overt ignorance. I guess the AAP is an activist org now too….LOL!

          • Steven Schwartz

            Save that we’ve now provided you information to two different studies that suggest strongly that B is not true. Furthermore, there is general agreement that providing full support for gay marriage would *help* B, therefore C remains untrue.

          • Mike

            Your point #2 is factually incorrect. Thus, your argument fails.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Actually, do a search on “gay divorce rate compared to straight hertz” — and you’ll find a link to one. Top article, with an essay to go along with it.

            Similarly, permitting the full legal stability of marriage has been shown to *increase* permanence in marriage; so comparing pre-rights same-sex pairings to opposite-sex pairings already invested with full marriage rights is going to introduce precisely the bias that you want to use to support *not* granting rights.

            So, no, it means *less* broken families and societal ills.

          • Ron Swaren

            “introduce precisely the bias that you want to use to support *not* granting rights.”

            You sure are a self appointed pendant. Comparing same sex marriage to real marriage is still comparing apples to oranges. If a man lover catches his man in bed with some other man, does he get out his gun and threaten to kill the cheater(s). Is one instance of ‘unfaithfulness” going to be grounds for divorce, as it frequently is in real marriages? If I were a judge why would I give any more credence to two men proposing to marry, as I would to someone showing up and asking to marry his ‘invisible Martian friend?’ They are both ridiculous absurdities. The gay mental structure, even when you try to limit it to a ‘monogamous relationship’ is still radically different. People beware: Gays aren’t only after the “right” to marry. As James Dobson said “They want everything” and that includes eventually total control. Their minds are truly suffering from mental disorder that is intrinsically power hungry.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Comparing same sex marriage to real marriage is still comparing apples to oranges.

            When the subject is “fruit”, that’s a valid comparison. ;)

            If a man lover catches his man in bed with some other man, does he get out his gun and threaten to kill the cheater(s).

            Sometimes. Just as is sometimes the case with mixed-sex marriage. I do find it odd that the “Would you threaten your spouse with a gun?” test is so important to you.

            If I were a judge why would I give any more credence to two men proposing to marry, as I would to someone showing up and asking to marry his ‘invisible Martian friend?’

            Because one of them is demonstrably there and the other one isn’t? Just a thought…

            As I thought. All you’ve got is “It’s absurd.” Not why it is, nor why your opinion of absurdity should matter. Just a blanket assertion.

          • Mike

            The best interest of the children is served by stable famalies and gay marriage provides those. Just because you are too stupid to realize that the Regnerus study was a proven fraud doesn’t change the truth… and the truth is you are wrong. The highest divorce rates are among southern evangelical christians but I don’t hear you complaining about them. That’s because you are a hypocrite and liar and are pushing an agenda rather then reacting to facts.

          • John R

            Everything you just wrote is a lie and bull crap and guy know it. Why do you continue to do this?

          • Boo

            How is yet another win a crack in a winning streak?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            A crack in the unanimity.

          • Boo

            Uh, Jacobus, not all of the prior cases were decided unanimously either.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Uh, Boo, since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, Judge Kelly is the FIRST federal judge to decide against gay “marriage.” Read the AP article from yesterday: A Crack In Legal Unanimity For Gay Marriage.

            Next, time do your homework before you try to challenge me.

          • Kyle

            So Judge Kelly is the activist?

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            Kelly’s illogics were so twisted, that ANY form of discrimination could be legal under his understanding of what counts as a “rational basis”.

      • Kyle

        No Jacobus, the Supreme Court decided the Windsor case on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds, not 10th Amendment States rights grounds.

        • Jack Brown

          Such nuance will be lost on Mr. Arminius, I’m sure.

      • ErickMN

        And you’ve been whining and moaning about it every minutes of every day since. Get over it and get on with your life. Sheesh.

      • Mike

        Yes, you mouth-breathing inbred moron, and now, state by state, the discriminatory laws are being reversed.

        You loose you pathetic bigoted scum. it’s fun watching you seethe and lie and make up idiotic interpretations of laws you don’t understand.

        • Ron Swaren

          I don’t think that people doubt that tyrants are cunning strategists. No argument there. But oftimes they betray their real intent with abusive tactics, such as calling people “moron,” “pathetic,”‘ “bigots” and “scum.” In all of English Common law going back almost a thousand years there has been no provision for “gay marriage.” Your ignorance is certainly on display here.

  • Don39

    I beg to differ with Dr. Carson, but, as to gay marriage, 1 + 1 = 0 ! That’s right one abomination plus another abomination equal ZERO if not less!

    • Kyle

      Not a fan of math, huh?

      • Don39

        Oh I am a big fan of real math and of real marriage too! And if you were real I might be a fan of yours!

        • vorpal

          1+1 = 0 in the finite field of order 2.

          • Don39

            I am sorry this is all over your head! One queer does not equal a real 1 and therefore two queers married or not do not equal a real two/pair ! Hope this does not confuse you further.

          • Mike

            I am so sorry that you think you have anything to say worth listening to. I am sorry that you are a moronic, self limiting hateful piece of excrement… in short a typical christian.

            I’m sorry that you think your moral betters are “queer” or abnormal.

            I’m sorry that you are so damn stupid that you are incapable of rational thought.

          • Don39

            Thank you, thank you, I would expect nothing less from a self deluded abomination!

          • vorpal

            Awwww… that’s so cute, cupcake: you think math is over my head? I have a PhD in math, so I can assure you that it isn’t.

            Of course I don’t equal 1 in the field of real numbers; the real number 1 has no unit associated with it. That being said, I am at least equal in value to you as a human being, and my marriage is as valid as anyone else’s. You’re free to cover your ears and close your eyes and yell, “NANANANA NOT LISSSSSTENING!” like a five year old all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that I have a civil marriage recognized by the government and the rights and protections that that comprises.

          • Scott Lanway

            I…I think you blew him off the Internet. Well done, Vorp, well done.

          • vorpal

            Thanks, bud! Big gay =fist bumps= back at you!

          • Don39

            To bad all that so-called education was wasted on you. You are the one that sounds and acts like a baby, to say nothing of an ABOMINATION! Save your personal crap for someone that cares!

          • vorpal

            Education cures Christianity dead.

          • Don39

            You are living proof that an ignorant man with an education is just an ignorant fool. That is some sentence for an educated fool! By the way you over educated moron you can’t hold a candle to my education and certainly not to any education that counts. And you can not begin to enjoy or appreciate the lifetime of accomplishment and recognitions that I have. Nothing you brag about is of any value to mankind or to yourself. You are trivial!

          • vorpal

            Yawn.

    • Michex

      I agree. No one, not even homosexuals, ever thought that same sex marriage made any sense. No people, no country, nobody. People who believe in same sex marriage are brainwashed and/or intimidated. Even homosexuals think it’s stupid, if they are honest. They are just copying each other. A man having sex with a man cannot produce a child. What, the man gets impregnated and the baby come out his rear end?

      • Jack Brown

        You seem to be under the delusion that procreation is some sort of goal and/or requirement for matrimony.

        Furthermore, you seem to conveniently ignore things such as adoption, surrogacy, and artificial insemination. A same-sex couple who wants children does not have to rely on your comically misinformed view of human reproduction; they have other options.

        Another option is to not have children at all. Even opposite-sex marriages exercise that option now and then, and guess what? It’s perfectly legal.

      • Kyle

        ~20% of all marriages are childless, are those marriages illegitimate also?

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Big difference between marriages that don’t produce children and those that can’t produce children. Elderly and infertile heterosexual marriages are still functionally the same (in accordance with the binary functionality of gender), even if the sex organs aren’t functioning the same (not producing babies).

          • Kyle

            So they’re functionally the same even though they are NOT functionally the same? LOL!

          • garybryson

            Procreation has NEVER been a prerequisite for marriage. This is yet another of many reasons that you all keep losing in court. You cant deny a person or persons the right to get married if they dont plan on having children so then why deny two gay people their right to marriage? They may adopt or have children via surrogate, no different than heteros who use the same methods to have kids. You are pathetic.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            I didn’t say that procreation was a prerequisite…just pointed out the difference between hetero infertility and homosexual incapacity to reproduce.

          • Kyle

            There is no substantive difference between a sterile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, unless of course you are going to try to argue that the state has some vested interest in grouping penises with vaginas for no reason whatsoever…

          • garybryson

            But they do have the capacity to reproduce you moron. Ever heard of IVF or surrogates? Good grief man, get a grip.

          • Mike

            The only difference is inside your demented, hateful mind you worthless scum.

          • icapricorn

            Thus, a distinction without a difference. As such, irrelevant. The issue is marriage, not childbearing. Marriage does not require procreation, and procreation does not require marriage. Many gay families are raising the biological children of one of the spouses. Every court that has heard this procreation argument as privileging opposite-sex marriage have rejected it as irrelevant. No matter how hard your crew keeps beating that and all the other dead horses in your anti-gay argument, none of these arguments are going to stand up under sober judicial scrutiny. None of them have, none of them will.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            You are pathetic…you and your redefining deviants. Marriage is one man and one woman. You don’t get to call horses cows, hamburgers steaks, circles squares. Words have real, established meanings. What you guys want to do is create anarchy.

          • Kyle

            Civil institutes are subject to change over time Jacobus, sorry that this makes you so very butthurt…

          • Jack Brown

            I wonder if people freaked out this badly when the meaning of “terrific” went from “causing terror” to “of great size or intensity”.

          • QuestionsEverything

            “Marriage is one man and one woman.”

            The concept of marriage has changed many times throughout the history of mankind, so has the idea as to the meaning of the word marriage.

            Some cultures allowed one man/many women or one woman/many men forms of marriage. Other cultures have allowed marriage to be about property and wealth enhancements and nothing to do with love and respect, while others have allowed familial marriages.

            Would you prefer that we ban the institution of civil marriages and only allow holy matrimony, that way the theocrats can dictate what is and is not allowed?

            Please explain how allowing two loving men or two loving women marry will create anarchy.

          • garybryson

            We only want to create equality. If you cant handle it, move! Judges across this great nation are ruling against you and your ilk consistently whether you like it or not. Enjoy SSM as it is here to stay. So you can stomp your feet and shake your fist at the sky but it wont help as you are the losing side of history. You and your kind become less relevant on a daily basis.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Of course, once upon a time “voters” meant “men who could pay the poll tax/pass the literacy test”. But we can’t change what words mean, can we?

          • Kyle

            Land owning men…

          • Steven Schwartz

            Well, that was before we changed it that one time…oh! Wait! You’re right; words can’t change. So we should go back…and only Roman citizens are allowed to vote? Or is Athenian male citizens? It’s so complicated tracking down the original and real meanings of words. ;)

          • Mike

            You are a pitiful liar and a worthless human being. You know that procreation is not and never has been required for marriage. You are just being a typical christian and telling any lie you can to support your virulent hatred of your moral betters.

            Scum like you, so very happy to see the rights of others taken away, are the ones least deserving of the blessings of liberty but as I am a better person then you, I would never try to abrogate any right you actually posses (not the ones you idiots make up, like the right to tell other people they can’t get married) but let me be one of what I am sure is many of your betters to encourage you to get out of my great secular republic. You don’t deserve to be an American.

  • junkmailbin

    the math formula is actually 2+2= 69

    • Kyle

      Wouldn’t that math be 2+2= 69 69?

  • Michex

    When judges rule for same sex marriage, they are just copying each other, and don’t want to rock the boat.

    If, sometime back, you had suggested to ANY of these judges that the Constitution mandated same sex marriage, they would have suggested treatment in a mental hospital.

    • Jack Brown

      You’re right, they ARE copying one another.

      You see, they’re all working from the same sheet of paper. It’s called “The
      United States Constitution”.

    • Kyle

      “When judges rule for same sex marriage, they are just copying each other”,

      Em yeah, that’s called adherence to precedent and constitutional jurisprudence… It’s kind of how judicial review works…

      • Jacobus Arminius

        Except that they have been ignoring over 200 years of prior precedent.

        • Kyle

          Yep, that’s what the court does when prior precedent was inncorrect, see Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.

          • Jack Brown

            Or, for an example that Mr.Arminius might be able to relate to, Hill v. Colorado and McCullen v. Coakley.

        • QuestionsEverything

          Do you think Loving v. Virginia should be overturned? After all, the outcome ignored over 200 years of prior precedent.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            To be exact, Loving V. Virginia did not follow 200 years of American precedence. It was decided in 1967…America instituted the Constitution in 1787. Officially, that’s 180 years.

            So, marriage precedence is almost 250 years. Why didn’t they (specifically, judges) find a right to gay marriage in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, or 2000s????

          • Kyle

            Virginia’s state prohibition on miscegenation predates the foundation of this country in it’s present form.

          • QuestionsEverything

            “To be exact, Loving V. Virginia did not follow 200 years of American precedence. It was decided in 1967…America instituted the Constitution in 1787. Officially, that’s 180 years.”

            Semantics.

            “Why didn’t they (specifically, judges) find a right to gay marriage in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, or 2000s????”

            Because progress doesn’t happen over night; change is gradual.

          • Jack Brown

            Good grief, that’s like asking “Why didn’t the court find that segregation was unconstitutional in the 1890s? The 1920s?”

            Times change, dude. If you haven’t figured that out, you might want to learn about it before debating the matter further.

            Unless, of course, you are being purposely obtuse, in which case trying to reason with you would be like trying to administer medicine to the dead.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Because judges are required to rule only on cases before them.

            A judge is not allowed to, say, declare from the bench that ‘As of today, corporations are allowed to get married!” until two corporations apply for a wedding license and are denied, and sue.

            It’s a frequent complaint about so-called “new rights” — when they are instead answers to questions never asked before.

            Any more basic issues we can clarify for you about how constitutional law works?

        • John R

          So, time for a change,

    • QuestionsEverything

      I don’t think anyone is saying that the Constitution “mandated same sex marriage”, only that barring them is unconstitutional.

    • Mike

      Wrong, you moron. When judges rule for equal protection under the law, they ruling in accordance with the highest law of the land, the Constitution, and against the hateful repression of scum like you.

      You filth who are so anxious to see the freedoms of others taken from them are the least deserving of freedom but, being a better person then you, I would never advocate the removal of any of your legitimate rights.

  • Boo

    Perhaps if you hadn’t slept thought Logic 101 you would know that mathematics is not a civil institution.

    • Steven Schwartz

      It’s true — I’ve known some *really* ill-mannered mathematicians. ;)

      • Mike

        Ha!

  • ErickMN

    The only thing most Americans remember about Carson are his bizarre public comments about sex with children and animals. Yuck. Get lost, Carson.

  • Theodore Fenton

    A better analogy would be the traditionalists proclaim 2 plus 2 equals 4, and no one else is allowed to do math.

  • dawn1257

    Could you imagine listening to that ‘whiny’ voice as a president for four years?

    NO WAY!

    • ErickMN

      No. Ugh.

    • thisoldspouse

      Instead, we have the limp-wristed metrosexual Marxist. Such an improvement /sarc

      • dawn1257

        I’m not a big Obama fan (on most things), but I’ll take him over Carson….any day! He’s just whacked!

      • Clive Johnson

        You’ve apparently never encountered a reasonable definition of Marxist before.

      • Mike

        You are a knee-jerk thoughtless sleep who echoes the lies of your moronic lying preachers and right wing demagogues. You are simply too stupid to live.

  • Rob T

    If a mathematician’s best argument for 2+2=4 is “tradition” and “it’s always been that way,” then he’d be a terrible mathematician.

    I’m inclined to view Carson the same way.

    • Kyle

      It is a stunningly shallow argument, isn’t it?

    • ShellyBuchanan

      I’m going to vote for him for president!

      • Scott Lanway

        Well, no one ever accused you of being terribly bright…

  • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

    Queers just can’t understand why everyone won’t go along with their chosen perversion. They have their activist judges and politicians, which includes the batcrap crazy media that helps make up stuff as they go along. You can win in your court but in the end you lose. May ask for forgiveness 1 minute before you die. Past that, you have no recourse and no lawyer to talk you out of your problem. Ponder that. Oh, wait, one has to have a brain. I forgot. Queers are so open minded, their brain fell out a long time ago. Oh well.

    • Boo

      Do you understand that no one actually wants to have gay sex with you? Is this something you are capable of understanding?

      • Jack Brown

        I doubt I would even want to have a conversation with the guy.

        • Boo

          Well you know up front what he’d want to talk about.

    • Jack Brown

      Your argument is about as convincing as telling me I won’t dine with gods in Valhalla because I support same-sex marriage.

      “Yeah, well maybe the Supreme Court is on your side, but the all-consuming Quetzacoatl will not bless you in the afterlife!”

      That’s what you sound like.

    • ErickMN

      How hilarious that gay people make you so miserable! I hope you whine and moan about them every single day for the rest of your hateful life. And next time post video so we can REALLY enjoy your little hissy fit!

    • Theodore Fenton

      You know what, if I were Gay Emperor of North America I would probably make it illegal for fundamentalist “Christians” to vote, so run along and count your blessings.

    • Mike

      Christians just don’t understand why their moral and intellectual betters keep telling them how wrong and hateful they are. Demented christians keep claiming that they should be allowed to tell gay people they can’t get married (as if christians owned the concept of marriage or if it were any of their business) or that it should be legal to discriminate against them in public businesses and that the homosexuals should be polite and accept it.

      How entitled these moronic, hateful children are. They think that if they aren’t getting to force their disgusting beliefs onto others, that their rights are being abridged.

      Hateful christians just can’t understand that they are demented fools who believe in evil mythology and don’t deserve to be taken seriously in any way.

  • Pingback: Dr. Ben Carson: So-Called ‘Gay Marriage’ Is Like 2+2=5 | Just Say No To Gay Marriage

  • Rob T

    It’s hilarious to read this:

    Rather than engage in reasonable debate with their opponents, they prefer to spew vitriol and hurl epithets such as homophobe, bigot, hater, and anti-gay as if they’re going out of style.

    …and then go into the comments section to see the anti-gays spew vitriol and hurl epithets at gay people.

    Then Jeff Allen writes this:

    And not only that, since they have been unable to win the debate in the arena of ideas or at the ballot box, a complicit and constitutionally-rogue legal system has imposed their deviant agenda by judicial fiat.

    …but doesn’t seem to understand, first, that winning in the courts means we are able to win in the arena of ideas, and second, that we are able to win at the ballot box and have done so in the last four states it came up for a vote.

    At this point, Jeff Allen is just making stuff up.

    • Boo

      What else do you expect him to do? Face reality? That would be a clear violation of his Religious Freedom.

  • Pingback: FRIDAYS UPDATES 6-27-14 | Mr. T's updates

  • BadKarma

    Leftist’s always demand tolerance of the intolerable.

    • Scott Lanway

      Denying Americans the equal protections of the law is intolerable, dipstick.

    • Rob T

      I find your use of apostrophes intolerable.

    • Boo

      Your inability to tolerate other people’s marriages is legally irrelevant, you creepy weirdo.

  • Pingback: Paranoia-Rama LGBT Pride Month Edition: ‘Gay Gulags,’ ‘Reeducation Camps’ And HIV Cure | Right Wing Watch | JerBear's Queer World News, Views & More From The City Different – Santa Fe, NM

  • http://expatriato.blogspot.com/ Muscato

    Ben Carson may write as he chooses, and his audience may, if they choose, lap it up. It’s a free country and more power to them. But here’s the truth: I’m a man, and I’m married. To my husband.

    Not “married” or even “gay married.” If anyone chooses to distinguish between this condition and their interpretation of holy matrimony specific to a given faith, they are certainly welcome to do so – as long as they abide by the laws of our secular republic.

    The federal government recognizes our civil marriage, even if, in what I’m sure will be a temporary inconvenience, the state in which we reside does not yet do so. Through our marriage we are able to avail ourselves of the more than 1,000 privileges and benefits we hear so much about; we also – and you hear less of this – are also subject to all of the responsibilities that come with marriage. We accept them joyfully. We file our taxes jointly, we’re buying a house jointly, and (and I fear this may dismay some BarbWire readers), thanks to marriage we are working through the process to make my Muslim husband of foreign origin an American citizen.

    In short, the ship has sailed, and we personally and the nation of which I’m a proud citizen have benefited greatly from this expansion of liberty and justice for all.

    • Kyle

      Congratulations on your marriage!

  • Don39

    Well Dr. Carson you sure brought the abominations out of the woodwork! What a bunch of sick creeps, no wonder the left is so screwed up and so in love with other abominations including the one in the White House. They must and they will be defeated!

  • Michex

    If Mother Nature wanted two men to marry and have a baby, she would have made sure that men could breastfeed.

    • Boo

      Is there a point to your bizarre ramblings?

    • John R

      Not all women breast feed,

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!


EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!