1. says

    And you Ben Carson belong in prison for such hate speech. Marriage is not yours to define. Marriage is a civil right, not a religious right. You suck. You belong behind bars.

  2. e.c. says

    But all good Christians should get the extra right to discriminate against anyone of their choosing.

  3. Pietro says

    He is the perfect spokesperson for the Republicans as he has that wicked doublespeak down quite well. Unfortunately, we are witnessing the end times of the GOP. I presume they will continue to implode like a dark star and end up feeding the black holes of America soon by 2016.

  4. ernest1960 says

    Then we should probably invalidate any interracial marriages since Loving vs. Virginia legally redefined marriage for him. Those darn 1960’s PC people!

  5. anon says

    Getting paid to spout talking points everyone else is spouting is about the easiest job in the world.

  6. Tarc says

    Ol’ Benny boy is right about the idea that no one should have ‘extra rights’ – like the ‘extra’ heterosexual right to marry. Everyone is required by law to be equal – as we’re happy seeing happening right now in the courts. Both law and science are based on logic and reason, so the bizarre, random ‘beliefers’ are going to be SOL ad infinitum.

  7. Chrislam says

    Meh…the group he is talking too at one time thought, “black people should have the same rights…but not the extra rights to inter racially marry”.

    America is a progressive country Mr. Carson. If you do not like it…then please return to the plantation.

  8. jmartindale says

    Don’t you wish the world would never change? In the 1780s, for the writers of the Constitution, freedom and equality meant freedom and equality for white males. That definition was all messed up in the mid-19th century.

  9. says

    stop comparing the decades long plight of people of color that is still going on with gay rights. you are not helping yourself ANY. You also come off extremely racist.

  10. says

    stop comparing the decades long plight of people of color that is still going on with gay rights. you are not helping yourself ANY. You also come off extremely racist.

  11. Michaelandfred says

    Nobody is “redefining” marriage. Two consenting adults choosing to spend their lives (hopefully) together.

  12. DannyEastVillage says

    this man went to med school at Hopkins, so presumably he’s able to think logically, but

  13. ascanius1 says

    it’s the religions that are asking for special rights.

    i’ll be glad when the marriage battle is over so we can concentrate our political energy on taking back the churches’ privileged positions, such as being tax exempt.

  14. james st. james says

    He got into CPAC? Did he have to wait tables?

    And where are the GOPathetic members comments? Speaking of waiting tables.

  15. guywithacorgi says

    Just for the record, this point was addressed in the Prop 8 trial and the judge ruled that claiming that gay people had the same right to marriage as straights because they were free to marry the opposite sex partner of their choice was not valid.

    For one, it places an undue burden on gay and lesbian citizens by requiring them to marry someone they are not sexually attracted to. Further, it is not in the state’s interest to encourage marriages where there is fundamental sexual incompatibility, as that’s one of the primary reasons cited for divorce.

    And yes, it’s exactly the same argument as the one against interracial marriage. In that case, the interracial couples sought to “redefine marriage” by making it about race-mixing, and the claim was that they were having no rights taken away because they were free to marry the same-race partner of their choice just like everybody else.

  16. Gregory in Seattle says

    So… we can have equal rights as long as we never, ever, use those equal rights and remain second class citizens.

  17. jmartindale says

    @ Derrick. I don’t care whether it is a Black bigot or a white bigot who attacks equality for gay people. Discrimination is discrimination. Pointing out a Black man’s bigotry by using the history of his race is perfectly fair game.

  18. woody says

    well, derrick, at least black people could find comfort within their own families.
    when i was growing up in the 1970s, gay teens had no one to turn to or talk to.
    you couldn’t tell other kids and you couldn’t tell your parents because you feared rejection or expulsion from your own home.
    being gay and being black are different.
    buy gays face(d) a lot of hatred, and they often had to face it alone.

  19. Bill says

    Wasn’t Rosa Parks demanding “extra rights” by not accepting an area-based seating assignment like everyone else who used a bus?

    It would be interesting to see him answer that one since it is basically the same argument he is using, with the issues replaced. If a logical argument is sound, and you do such a replacement, what you get is also valid. So his only acceptable way out is to admit that his argument was flawed.

  20. Bill says

    @jmartindale: in one respect your analogy is a bit off – the people (at least some of them) who wrote the U.S. constitution did not necessarily think that only white males deserved rights. Instead, they compromised to get something everyone would agree to. The idea of counting slaves as a fraction of a person was a compromise – the northern states didn’t want them counted at all unless they had a right to vote. The southern states wanted them counted for determining the number of representatives they had, but didn’t want them to have a right to vote.
    So they split the difference.

  21. JJ says

    @Derrick, first, the gay civil rights movement is directly analogous to the black civil rights movement, and NOT because being gay is like being black, but because white supremacists and straight supremacists are exactly the same except for their choice of victim. They use the same flawed logic and immoral tactics. You fail to recognize that there are two sides to both movements, and it’s the haters that people are comparing.

    Second, you say stop “people of color” as if everyone commenting here is white, and then you contrast with “gay rights” as if gay and person-of-color are mutually exclusive. I assure you: both your assumptions are wrong, and that *is* racist.

  22. JMC says

    Let’s be real, the people on Towleroad who basically say “You would’ve been a slave not too long ago – shut up!” every time a black person says something stupid are all white and all racist

  23. jmartindale says

    @Bill–A distinction without a difference. The concept of universal equality of races and sexes was not a feature of 18th century American thought. The Constitution as written solidified real inequities under the law, despite the fact that there were those opposed to slavery among the writers. This was still a period where the founding fathers believed that voting should only be permitted for those men who owned property.

  24. simon says

    Just nonsense. To define something is not a right. Meaning of a word is based on common usage. As a matter of fact, most dictionaries have already redefined the word “marriage”.

  25. JonnyNYNY2FLFL says

    Isn’t it odd how the Republicans trot out an Afican-American candidate in their Presidential primaries each cycle (remember Herman Cain, the “999” guy, last time) who couldn’t possibly win the nomination, let alone the election.

    This, while actively advancing a nationwide voter suppression strategy aimed primarily at minority voters.

    It’s the old slight-of-hand trick. Just as they preach liberty & personal freedom, on the other hand, they seek to oppress those who don’t share their fundamentalist rightwing values.

  26. Steve says

    How do people here feel about cousins or siblings marrying? I have been asked this by a couple I know (muslim, religious) that are against gay marriage. It was obviously a trap. Any input would be welcome

  27. Skip says

    @ Li’l old Benny Carson: I don’t need marriage to be redefined either, as long as I’m treated equal and can marry the one I love! Do you get it? Nope? Didn’t think so.

  28. Bill says

    @jmartindale : your original post said, “for the writers of the Constitution, freedom and equality meant freedom and equality for white males.”

    I was pointing out that what they wrote is not necessarily what “freedom and equality” meant to them but rather a reflection of what they thought was necessary to get 13 independent states to ratify it when some of those states had a vested interest in slavery.

  29. says

    The best part about loonies like him is that Republicans stand no chance of ever taking high office again as long as this is whom they embrace.

  30. says

    The best part about loonies like him is that Republicans stand no chance of ever taking high office again as long as this is whom they embrace.

  31. says

    The best part about loonies like him is that Republicans stand no chance of ever taking high office again as long as this is whom they embrace.

  32. emjayay says

    JJ: Yes

    Meanwhile, how did this guy get through medical school and way beyond and do what he did in his medical career?

    I myself can’t seem to divide my brain into a logical scientific information based part and a logical argument free, information input free, believe whatever I want to believe part.

  33. JJ says

    @BILL, the semantic nuance you’ve pointed out, while it may be accurate, is irrelevant to @JMARTINDALE’s point (be it sarcastically framed) that even our most fundamental principles are subject to redefinition in the ongoing pursuit of justice for all.

  34. youneed toread says

    Knowing how dangerous aids is, whats the difference between a drunk driver and a man with aids ?
    And no parent wants their kids to be a bunch of drunks.

    Now you would think that the parents or somebody would try to take those keys away.
    Or we could wink the eye and pat them on the back and hope for the best or be honest.

    When men become confused and can’t discern what’s natural then they should take a look at the animals. Or watch some grade school kids put together a puzzle. Grow up.

    And if the moral compass is a liberal agenda, what hope is there for your kids ? A trans gender in your daughters bath room. Sounds Sick, AY

    And if the gay movement has its way your kids are going to be indoctrinated in the public schools weather you like it or not . And if you don’t believe it take a look at this story, www massresistance org

    ( Nightmare at Franklin”, by Tom Mountain. )
    That story is a reflection of the scheming minds behind the gay movement.

    And who do you think loving mothers will ostracize ?

    Like the writers of the constitution, im sure they never thought it would be an issue that enlightened men would have to debate.

    In the times were living in people should be very carful about who they throw their LOT in with.

    Have you ever seen what happens when two gay men get together ? Have you ever seen two fires meet ?

    And before giving a thumbs up or down you may want to wait for the next comment.
    Or Click on user name and read it before I post it.

  35. Jack M says

    He was well respected while practicing medicine at Johns Hopkins, but ever since he started spouting his ignorance, he’s become a person to avoid. He retired last year, and the institution was glad to see him go.

  36. JJ says

    @STEVE, when people change the subject to incest, it usually means they’re out of direct arguments against same-sex marriage. Pin them down on that point. Ask them before “changing the subject” if they have any other objections to SSM, or if they now agree that there’s nothing wrong with SSM per se. They will likely balk at saying they’re out of objections. Insist on finishing the debate on SSM before moving on to another subject.

    Of course, their reason for bringing up incest is to make a slippery slope argument. If the discussion goes there, ask them if they think the effects of inbreeding ( are a sufficient reason to forbid siblings from marrying. If so, then they should agree that legalizing SSM will not legalize incest, because there are _independent_ reasons to outlaw incest.

    If that doesn’t work, then you could also restate the slippery slope argument as:

    1. If we can’t deny gays the right to marry, then we can’t deny _anyone_ the right to marry.
    2. We must deny siblings the right to marry;
    3. Therefore we must deny it to gays.

    They will likely try to evade this formulation in order to avoid having to defend the glaring logical leaps. If they try to reword their position, keep restating it as above. They may try to shift the burden of argument to you with a question: “If we allow SSM, what would prevent X?” You don’t have to take up the burden of argument, just deflect it back. For example: “I wasn’t aware that one followed from the other. Can you give a specific case?”

    The slippery slope argument can be generalized to:

    If we can’t deny gays X, then we can’t deny _anyone_ X. But we must deny so-and-so X, therefore we must deny gays X.

    You can show the absurdity of this argument by showing that if the law ever denies anything to anyone, then it must also deny it to gays. Simple replace X and “so-and-so” with appropriate substitutes. Some examples:

    1. X = the right to drive, so-and-so = children
    2. X = the right to vote, so-and-so = children
    3. X = welfare, so-and-so = the gainfully employed
    4. X = freedom, so-and-so = convicted felons
    5. X = the right to life, so-and-so = certain criminals

    Also note that the above argument singles out gays arbitrarily, which means you can replace “gays” with anything. Try replacing “gays” with Jews, blacks, Muslims, etc., to really drive home how idiotic this argument is.

  37. Errol says

    Very interesting reading the comments here. One gets the idea that gays are the only ones allowed to have an opinion. The hate in their voices is undeniable when they’re presented with an opposing argument. One can gets the sense that they’d be OK with a medeival slaughter of all ideological opposition. They want others to practice tolerance but it’s obviously not for them, as they shout down all opposition – “say no to free speech!”. Of course no gay will give this post a fair look because they are uncritical of themselves. Sad state of affairs in this world.

  38. Errol says

    Someone who holds a differing opinion belongs in prison? When the shoe is on the other foot…unbelievable. Such ignorant people out there. Let’s just throw out freedom of speech and the rest of the Constitution while we’re there.