Ben Carson says Gay Marriage will lead to polygamy

No, sorry it's not.

You can prove this for yourself by taking 10 people..20 people..and playing the response game wiht them if you like. the human mind makes immediate associations based on words.

if you took 10 people and said "fire"...I bet more than half would say "hot". My point was always that Marriage used to be a similar known. if you mentioned Marriage by word..or said you were Married...people knew that meant you had a Husband or Wife at home. Further if you were a Male...they knew instantly you had a Wife at home, and vice versa for a Woman.

As we are going now...it lost that isntant recognition...now if a Man says he is "Married", do you know what he has at home?

Thats about as simply as I can put it.


Now as time goes forward, and other groups get theirs....the term has less instant recognition. It lost meaning.


Test it yourself. go around the Office today and play a quick word association game with people you know. Use Marriage as one of them, and I'll bet you that not one of your respondents mentions color in any fashion.

 

Adults have a right to live their lives the way they want to without government interference. Why it isn't legal already just shows how draconian, and totalitarian our government is, obviously knowing what is best for others. This shouldn't even be an issue. Simplify the tax code and eliminate the benefits given to married couples and all this nonsense would have gone away decades ago. If two or more adults wish to enter into a contractual obligation, cohabitation, or business in general, government should just be there to play arbitrator when the contract is defaulted on.

 

He sure doesn't seem very intelligent to me. He may be good at medicine but seems pretty pathetic at everything else. It's frightening to think of this guy in the White House.

 

Because. You. Are. Not. Gay.

Yall really take burrowing your heads to a new level.

 

Not in your case. You refuse to even think about how gays think and feel.

 

I disagree with Dr. Ben Carson. He should get rid of his disdain for the Gay Community and make some friends with Gay people and he will then realize how wrong he is. In fact, I never heard Dr. Ben Carson saying that he had any Gay friends.

Dr. Ben Carson is incorrect about the definition of marriage being changed. The definition has been expanded; but not changed.

 

I expect the law to be codified to stay the hell out of my life, with regards to my interpersonal relationships, until and unless I violate the rights of others.

Then "Who cares?" is not a stupid question, because, even if the law did allow polygamy in marriage, it would only amount to a tiny fringe, as did homosexuality in marriage, and would not affect you, nor society, nor future generations in any measurable way.

 

Expanding is change......

 

.....and change can be good!

(deny that, mr digyourheelsin...aka sheldon )

 

Without wishing to re-litigate the SSM argument, ad nauseam, that's actually a false framing of the argument. I think you know this but on the off-chance that you don't, the actual argument is that: the ability or lack thereof to reproduce is not a barrier for entry into the marriage contract.

I know it makes your argument a lot easier to reduce this to: "reproduction was not allowed to be a barrier to marriage for gays" but it's really not the same thing.

The direct comparative argument is: "if the lack of ability to reproduce cannot be used as a barrier to certain straight couples marrying then neither can it be used as a barrier to gay couples marrying as, in all other respects, they are similarly or IDENTICALLY situated to each other with respect to the administration of the marriage contract".

The ability to reproduce can and indeed is sometimes viewed as a factor in who can marry. In those states that allow first cousins to marry they can often only do so as long as they can prove that they can't reproduce. There is a rational basis to this as there is suspected to be a relation between consanguinity and the incidence of birth defects. If this suspicion is, in fact, untrue its veracity can be tested and presented in court.

Of course this wouldn't be relevant if the first cousins in question were of the same-sex so, as far as like-for-like arguments are concerned, they would be one step closer to proving their case than a pair of opposite sex cousins who are fertile and/or of child bearing age.

That's the way the process works. Examining each case on its individual merits; not making blanket, half true, statements and hoping nobody will notice.

 

You are being deliberately ignorant of history. Marriage was limited to same rcell just a few decades ago.

 

You are correct. Change can sometimes be good...sometimes be bad, i expect each will have their own opinion on this change.

I was just perplexed that someone could say the Definition was expanded....but not changed?

I worry about America at times. Seems we simply make things up these days with absolutely no concern over it being correct. How can you expand Marriages definition without that being a change??



- - - Updated - - -

No, you are simply not keeping up with the discussion. Marriages changes and limitations were never in contention. it was about "meaning".

Maybe scroll back, read up, and then come back....or dont.

 

Lol. Nice picture.

 

So many awesome ones to choose from. I have a few others on deck that I just saw while grabbing that one , that I'll use if the right discussions ever come up hahaha.

 

Nope, haven't bothered to hate anyone for about the last 50 years.

If a person wants to take away/oppose freedom for Americans it's pretty much the same as hate....the result is the same and what would the motivation be if NOT hate?

 

Funny how this "freedom for Americans" thing works with you people when it's about gays, but say "gun" and oh boy, let the tyranny loose!

 

Say what?! Where did guns come into this? WHERE EXACTLY did I ever support tyranny for gun control?


I have declared that NO ONE has EVER tried to take MY guns.......did that get you all confused ???

 

Deflecting to guns doesnt help your cause.

 

Oh please your argument changes with the wind.

 

LOL the kettle is calling the pot black. Amazing how when someone proposes something you disagree with then its all about your rights being infringed upon. But when it doesn't impact you then imposing on other peoples rights is just fine. As in infringing on religion, abortion, and guns.

 

You made me chuckle. Liberal states are the most restrictive in the country and liberals in general love their restrictions. From guns to wood burning stoves to who you sell a cake to to what you consider hate speech and everything in between, you've never met a restriction you didn't like, and when you did, you restricted them: See amnesty. You voluntarily surrender your freedoms and think you're free. Amazing

- - - Updated - - -

Really? I have a gay sister and cousin and my sister will be visiting me on November 3rd.

 

Where am I imposing on other's rights....

 

If it lost it's original meaning then it has changed.

 

The "wind"I have been responding to started on post #17.

Perhaps you should start there and catch up. You'll find nothing has changed with regards to my argument.

 

Children don't give consent in general and the right to marriage does not imply the "right" to raise children. That said, how well a child does would have more to do with whether they're cared for, supported, disciplined, and able to have their basic needs met. None of this is ruined by having extra family around.