+1! 
There is no way to make the point he was making any other way. His point was not that he has animus against homosexuals but that he would oppose any group that wanted to change the definition of marriage. The unfortunate part is that there are only four groups who want to change marriage to include themselves. Polygamists really don’t belong in with the others so he listed the other groups.
I know those who enjoy being outrage will be outraged at his words but logically he made the point using the only examples available to him.
I’m curious - in what way don’t polygamists fit with the others? Because if you’re defining the group as “people who want to change the definition of marriage” and NOT as “sexual deviants (who may or may not want to change the definition of marriage)” then I don’t see how polygamists “don’t belong.” They may not fit if you are making the second point - “these are sexual deviants who want to change the definition of marriage.”
By putting these specific groups of people together, he is equating them in some way.
Nzinga, here are my thoughts.
I think there are two possibilities for why Dr. Carson ties in homosexuality with beastiality and pedophilia that are not irrational or stupid.
The first and most important reason is the one you’ve already dismissed: religion. According to Christianity, homosexuality is a sin, as is bestiality and pedophilia. That’s just as simple as it is. They’re all sins, they’re all bad behavior, they’re all sex-related, and thus, the comparison is apt because they are all sins. It’s not irrational or complicated. If you take it as a given that these behaviors are all sinful, then drawing comparisons between them is not stupid or illogical.
The second reason is that homosexuality seems as gross and wrong to him on a physical/visceral level as bestiality and pedophilia. This is just speculation on my part, but I have no problem believing that in his mind, they are all just as gross and icky as one another, and that’s why the comparison gets made.
Some Christians manage some level of cognitive dissonance, accepting that homosexuality is a sin but that we should “love the sinner” and they accept that even gays deserve the same legal rights even if they shouldn’t be recognized as being married in the Eyes of the Lord. This is actually what you should be upset about though, not the Christian who adheres to likening homosexuality with other sins; that’s rational and normal if you accept the Bible as commonly taught and understood.
That’s a thoughtful post, drew. Gonna chew on that for a while.
Polygamy has been a part of marriage in some societies for thousands of years. In this country there was almost a war fought over it. Homosexual marriage, pedophilic marriage, or bestial marriage would be much larger departures from the history of marriage.
It’s just red meat for the mouthbreather set. I’m sure his handlers consider it a great accomplishment to get gay marriage, bestiality and NAMBLA in the same sound bite. I’m also sure the Tea Party folks consider him “a credit to his race”.
You mean like Dr. Martin Luther King?
I actually think polygamy would have been a more appropriate comparison. It’s not illegal for people to engage in polygamy. Multiple people can live together as spouses. It’s just that the law doesn’t recognize it. As long as they are all consenting adults, there’s no moral or legal issue with X men and Y women living as spouses.
Pedophilia and bestiality are immoral. They are not relationships between consenting adults. The law doesn’t recognize it because it’s morally wrong, not because it differs from tradition.
Polygamy could be recognized, but it would be much harder to do because of the logistical reasons. The laws would have to change, the structure of benefits would have to change, etc. It’s not a matter of if polygamy is right or wrong, it’s that it’s not at all clear how to make it standardized. But we all understand what marriage is. It doesn’t matter what combination the gender is.
“It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group – be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality – it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”
Then,
“As you know, I have been in the national news quite a bit recently and my 36 year association with Johns Hopkins has unfortunately dragged our institution into the spotlight as well. I am sorry for any embarrassment this has caused”
“But what really saddens me is that my poorly chosen words caused pain for some members of our community and for that I offer a most sincere and heartfelt apology. Hurting others is diametrically opposed to who I am and what I believe.”
“There are many lessons to be learned when venturing into the political world and this is one I will not forget. Although I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, there are much less offensive ways to make that point. I hope all will look at a lifetime of service over some poorly chosen words.”
Yeah, it’s that damn vocabulary thing again. Some people took offense at his manner of speaking, when his intent and belief is all benign. Now he is devoting himself to doing a better job of turning a phrase. Yay, rhetoric.
There are 47 million people on foodstamps and Obama is encouraging people to use them, so there shouldn’t be any hungry people, unless they are using the money for something other than food.
BTW, Carson is not an idiot. You may disagree with what he says, but it doesn’t mean that he’s not got a right to say it.
Rubbish. If it were, the state would have to provide everyone with a marriage partner, if they couldn’t find one on their own.
Hurtful views IN YOUR OPINION please. Approximately half the population agree with him.
You seem to have omitted the part in your nurse training about accepting the right of other people to believe in things that you do not.
While I earlier mentioned another neurosurgeon with dingbat creationist/evolution denialist views (Michael Egnor), I forgot to cite perhaps the nuttiest neurosurgeon of them all, Russell Blaylock.
Blaylock, who has been publishing a health newsletter and selling supplements during his retirement, is known for railing against the horrific dangers of water fluoridation, vaccination, artificial sweeteners, aluminum cookware and “chemtrails”.
He also has multiple pages on whale.to, which is a reliable mark of being a loon.
What this shows yet again is - don’t trust an “expert” solely because they have “Dr.” in front of their name or have qualifications unrelated to the subjects on which they are expounding.
When you train as a nurse they teach you that if you want to express an opinion on an internet message board in a forum named “In My Humble Opinion” you must moderate this with how it is just your very humble opinion, lest someone get the wrong idea and… what? Nursing training is clearly not what I thought it was.
Seriously: huh? She said she is disappointed in his hurtful views. Your response makes no sense at all. She isn’t taking away his right to say anything, she isn’t campaigning for a ban on free speech. She is expressing her personal disappointment.
And yes, his views are hurtful. That’s not even a question of opinion, they are hurtful because they hurt people.
I really don’t see how you can get so confused by this straightforward post.
+1!
But I wanted to add that if you are looking at the “history of marriage” - child brides are part of that history. It is not a large departure from the history of marriage. It’s a old practice that still takes place in some cultures. Sometimes the “happy couple” waits until she is older, but other times they do not. It’s not illegal here because of a lack of history and tradition. It’s illegal because because a child cannot consent and it’s immoral. You cannot say that about SSM - two consenting adults making a decision to wed is NOT the same as being attracted to children or animals.
Comparing SSM to pedophilia or bestiality is looking for the “immoral” comparison, not the lack of connection to historical acceptance.
He apologized for being hurtful, so his opinion too.
Why do people insist on arguing points that no one has put forth? It’s so annoying. No one has said he doesn’t have a right to say whatever he likes. Having the right to say things doesn’t mean one can’t be an idiot or say idiotic things.
I actually don’t think he’s an idiot at this point. I think he’s just wrong.
It is, in fact, entirely possible to make an argument that does not rely on analogy at all. So he could very well have made his point without comparing gays to pedophiles, simply by stating his reasoning behind his opposition to SSM.
Beastialists are not, so far as I’m aware, arguing for the right to marry their pets. So, their inclusion in his analogy does not make any logical sense, except as an attempt to equate homosexuality with dog fucking.
Deftly done - you’ve got Obama “encouraging” people to use foodstamps and a subtle hint that they’re abusing the system, all with no firm statements, facts or relevance. Auditioning for FoxNews, are we?
Non sequitur. Even idiots have the right to say what they want, and their right to do so is not being infringed by us calling them idiots for it.