Skip to main content

Dr. Ben Carson may need to clarify his clarification...

Not long ago, so-called up-and-comer of the Republican Party - Dr. Ben Carson - appeared on Fox News' The Sean Hannity Show, when he made his following thoughts known about gay-marriage equality:

"Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association AKA pedophiles), be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications."

Ah, yes, what a well thought-out response by Dr. Ben Carson. For the record, Mr. Carson is an African-American, and for the record, interracial marriage wasn't made legal nationwide in this country until the year 2000 (thanks, Alabama...). Wasn't the "fundamental definition" of marriage at one time that of one man of a certain skin color marrying one woman of the same skin color? The "fundamental definition" of marriage fortunately changed in this country, so that men and women of differing skin colors could marry one another. I'm sorry, Mr. Carson, could you repeat what you said for me again?

"...So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has serious ramifications."

Right...

I love how Carson compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. ...or did he? I'll allow Mr. Carson to try and explain that himself.

Not long after Carson made the before-mentioned comments on The Sean Hannity Show, he went on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports to try and clarify a few things, when he said this:

"If anybody was offended, I apologize to you. But what I was basically saying is that there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal."

and

"If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, well that's not an orange. And then I say, that's a banana, that's not an apple either. And there's a peach, that's not an apple, either. But it doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. And in the same way I'm not equating those things."

Okay, let me try to straighten things up here (pun perhaps intended). Let's go back to Carson's initial statement, when he said the following:

"...Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association AKA pedophiles), be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition."

Okay, then when Mr. Carson attempted to clarify these comments, he compared his not equating homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality to three fruits. Yes, how fitting - fruits... No, apples, fruits, and peaches are not the same thing, but they are all fruits. They can all be found in one area of the grocery store. They're all similar to one another in that regard. Homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality are all completely different, however. They're not found in the same store, let alone the same aisle. If Carson had compared apples to teepees to limousines, then he would have made a bit more sense, yet still sounded ridiculous in the process. 

In the future, I have a feeling Dr. Carson isn't going to learn much from this mistake and will go on having to clarify his anti-gay marriage rhetoric, and follow up his, "...be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are..." with the following comparisons:

- "Chickens, ducks, and turkeys... They're not the same things, just like gays, pedophiles, and horse-f**kers."

- "Pitchers, catchers, and outfielders aren't the same - not even close! ...just like those gay people, pedophiles, and bird f**kers."

- "McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's aren't the same. It's just like what I said about the gays, pedophiles, and dog doggystyle lovers."

- "Cars, jeeps, and vans never were and never will be the same things. That's exactly what I meant when comparing, I mean, not comparing gay people to pedophiles and panda penetrators."

- "Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson, and I aren't the same. Wait, I guess we kind of are..."

Indeed. With "up-and-comers" like Dr. Ben Carlson, the GOP appears to be SOL for many years to come...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/28/_be_they_gays_be_they_nambla_be_they_people_who_believe_in_beastiality.html

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceequalopportunity/tp/Interracial-Marriage-Laws-History-Timeline.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/29/new-gop-darling-sorry-if-anyone-was-offended-by-comparing-gays-and-nambla/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"