Oh, Ben Carson, what is your deal? Are you seriously running for president, or are you just trying to Sarah Palin yourself, by getting on as many TV shows as possible until they finally offer you a job?
Ben Carson, you may recall, is the former neurosurgeon who decided that he ought to be president. To that end, he’s been raising money and making appearances and offering up bizarre statements to grab the attention to reporters who are getting bored waiting for serious candidates to enter the race.
Last time Ben was on our radar, it was for saying that prison turns men gay, and then apologizing (but not really). Now, he’s gained attention yet again by telling a reporter for CNBC that if you legalize marriage for gays and lesbians, you’ll have to legalize it for “other groups.” Who are those other groups? He won’t say! When the exasperated reporter finally suggests bigamy, Ben shrugs and says that’s a possibility.
We feel a bit of pity for the journalists assigned to cover the wacky presidential candidates like Ben Carson. He’s not serious enough to actually say or do anything of substance. But he’s also not funny enough to generate a viral meme, or even a momentary blip of humor, like the delightful candidate Vermin Supreme.
Ben’s argument is just completely wrong. For one thing, marriage for gays and polygamy are totally different things. One requires just changing some pronouns; the other requires completely re-writing the way that marriage contracts work. The fact that plural marriage would be so disruptive to the current system means that marriage equality could not possibly be used as justification for having multiple spouses. They’re just way too different to be compared.
And of course, gay marriage doesn’t lead to marrying children or animals or houses. Marriage is, fundamentally, an agreement. And you know what an agreement requires? For both parties to agree on something. If someone isn’t capable of consenting to something (like a child or an animal or a parked car) then it’s really not a marriage at all.
So there you go, Ben Carson. There’s the answer to your cute little question. Now please get out of the way so the grownups can talk about policy.
Dennis C. McGrath
Why, Prof. Firefly! That would be bigamy!
Why is Carson being given any attention?
Our “politicians” continually show just out of touch with reality they really are. Don’t we as species deserve to be lead by our best and brightest? Sadly all we get is the ego maniacs who pander to 13th century thinking. It’s disgusting.
get rid of Lev. 20:13….the biggest bully verse of all time.
Alexander R. Rodriguez
Is that why the UK Green Party just came out in favor of bigamy!? Nice try……
Why is he wrong? He’s an idiot. Next easy question.
Well, what is wrong with consensual polyamory relationships? Throuples, etc.? Why should monogamous couples get all the rights? Are the rest of us just so much chopped liver?
@notevenwrong: Polygamy is illegal in the United States because the primary application was polygyny (one man, multiple wives) and there was always the question of whether those women were willing participants in the union, or if they were coerced. Blame the Mormon faith; their practice back in the day was to marry off extremely young women to older men without their having any agency in the decision. So it all falls back to a question of consent, which I assume will be decided in courts at some point in the future.
… what disturbs me most about Carson’s arguments are that they are really no different than the arguments made before Interracial Marriage was legal. As a PoC I think it’s quite hypocritical of him to use arguments against the LGBTQ+ population that were used to argue against his own rights in the past.
Nice One Life To Live picture!!!
@Alexander R. Rodriguez:
We get it. You’d rather be dead than gay. You’re a colossal disappointment to your family and church. You even failed at reparative therapy, which you wanted so much to work. Oh well.
The thing is, you’re a weak, sniveling little person. At the end of the day, you still suck dick, and your “friends” on the right would rather see you disappear than be happy.
Stop taking your frustrations out in here. Take them out on the ones causing you your misery.
@Dave Basora: My thought exactly.
Any attempt to engage in rational debate with the insane is an exercise in futility and frustration. Not that Ben Carson is going to see this video or read Queerty anyway.
@notevenwrong: I’ll tell you what’s wrong. “Throuple” sounds like a Dr. Seuss character or a space alien in Star Wars or Star Trek or Star Search, etc. I’d never want to have any personal involvement with a “throuple”. A trio, a triad, a ménage a trois, even a quartet: each of those has its appeal. But a “throuple”, yecch, NEVER!
you already have bigamy and the destruction of traditional marriage. Look in the mirror and point to yourselves. we had nothing to do with it.
Ben carson, the mew Alan keyes, cain that’s all. He hasn’t even been invited to the rnc debates. What a moron. He should have retired into the limelight, instead he’s making a mockery of his whole brilliant career. Sad. I’m a baltomore native too.
“Well, what is wrong with consensual polyamory relationships? Throuples, etc.? Why should monogamous couples get all the rights? Are the rest of us just so much chopped liver?”
Nothing is wrong with consensual polyamorist relationships. They are perfectly fine as long as they are entered into by fully consenting adults. Of course, many polyamorist relationships are not entered into by consenting adults but by exploitive men and young girls.
Nothing in the marriage requirements demand a couple be monogamous to obtain the rights of a marriage. While few states allow divorce for extramarital affairs, nothing in the law requires couples to divorce for that. A couple can have an open marriage and nothing in the law prohibits it.
As Matt makes clear, creating a legal framework for polyamorist marriages would require a great deal of thought and work. For example, three people, A, B, and C, get married. A decided to divorce B, is she also divorcing C? If A divorces B, does that divorce B and C? A, B, C are married and C decides to marry D, are A and B married to D? If A, B, and C are married and C divorces A and B, what is the property sharing arrangement? The state has decided not to wade into this area and has every right to choose not to.
@macadvisor, most of family law involves more than two people. If family law can balance and protect the rights and obligations of parents and children over several generations, I don’t see why protecting the rights of, say, the adults in a trio, should be that difficult.
You mention the problem of divorce. Well, even now many, if not most, divorces, involve more than two people.
Anyway, my main point is : so what if it leads to (consensual) bigamy? We shouldn’t denigrate the life choices and rights of others. That’s as bad as what the people against hat marriage are doing.
We already know Carson is a sock puppet,so why even act like anything that comes out of his pie hole matters!
I read in your comment policy that you advocate tolerance, why is it my posts are not being shown?
Why are we trying to prove Ben Carson wrong on anything? There’s no proof needed. His “ideas” speak for themselves. It amazes me how out-of-left field this guy is and yet he has a strong approval rating out of the GOP candidates. Of course that just speaks to the circus of characters running for the GOP ticket, but still…..
Why are the fictional soap opera couple, Kyle & Fish from ABC’s ONE LIFE TO LIFE being used as the photo for this story?
@Alexander R. Rodriguez: Bitch needs to get some self respect.
@RealBenCarson 1/2 hetero marriages end in divorce. More divorce, unplanned pregnancy, unemployment, welfare and food stamp recipents in RED/Conservative-Christian states where they pay less taxes yet get more back from the government.
The entire article could have been reduced to one sentence, which Carson proves nearly every time he opens his mouth – “Because he’s a dumbass.” This is the man who said that, as President, he would ban selfie sticks. And his biggest proof of stupidity is thinking that a party who tortured an entire country just because the president was black would elect a black man. Hell, they’ve done what they’ve done to send a message that no other black guy should even try it.
@Alexander R. Rodriguez: You’re a self hating shitbag. Nobody cares what you think. No country with same sex marriage has legalized any of the things the right wing has talked about. Keep voting republican… you can live in your own demented fantasy land like Ben Carson and other right wing jackasses.
It is like when they say that marijuana leads you to try stronger stuff.
OOPS. I used the dreaded “r” word by accident.
@cflekken: For decades Republicans have been desperately trying to figure out how to attract more black voters while maintaining their [email protected] political ideology and government policies. Right-wing, wacko, black people like Carson, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes and Mia Love get the GOP so excited they wet themselves with glee and anticipation of a great black Republican tidal wave. I don’t see it coming. More like a trickle.
@Alexander R. Rodriguez: Did you know that according to the new Gallup pol, support for same sex marriage has reached an all time high?
You lose again, gay-hater. You must be used to the feeling by now.
“most of family law involves more than two people. If family law can balance and protect the rights and obligations of parents and children over several generations, I don’t see why protecting the rights of, say, the adults in a trio, should be that difficult.
You mention the problem of divorce. Well, even now many, if not most, divorces, involve more than two people.”
While family can involve more than one person, that is irrelevant to marriage law (a narrow slice of family law) involves only two parties. While other people may or may not be effected, there are only two parties to a divorce action. That a proceeding may have ripples affecting other people does not give them standing in court.
Moreover, I am sure a legislature could, if it was so disposed, set up a set of rules for polyamorous marriages. I simply doubt any is ever going to bother. The system of a two person marriage of equal parties works for gay marriages and straight marriages. It simply doesn’t work for polyamorous ones. Thus, the system simply can’t be reasonably extended to cover them. I whole new system needs to be created to handle the significant differences and I suggest not one single legislature in this country is going to do it. Could it be done? Yes. Will it be done? No a chance in h e double toothpicks.
@Alexander R. Rodriguez: Let us know when the 2 main parties adopt it too. At that point it means there is a significant portion of society in favour of it. And like most of history, when that happens it has a high chance of being legal. We actually officially recognized bigamy in a limited capacity for foreigners out of practicality.
@MAcAdvisor: “Thus, the system simply can’t be reasonably extended to cover them.”
I hate being drawn into discussions about marriage rights, since I don’t believe in civil marriage as it relates to states giving advantages to married people over singles. But many laws and regulations relating to marriage don’t mention the number “two,” and those that do can be very simply adapted by changing it to “two or more,” just like the “man and woman” part has been changed in many states to allow gay marriage. Just don’t tell me the judicial system cannot easily manage legal relationships consisting of more than two equal partners when that is what many law firms ARE.
Carson isn’t the only crazy candidate running. Perry again. Santorum possibly. Trump.
I wish Michele Bachmann would jump in again to really remind Americans what the GOP is about. Plus, we’d get to see more of Marcus sashaying around middle America. Work it girl!
” But many laws and regulations relating to marriage don’t mention the number “two,” and those that do can be very simply adapted by changing it to “two or more,” just like the “man and woman” part has been changed in many states to allow gay marriage.”
Would you please be so kind as to give some examples? To the contrary, if I may point out, when one person divorces another person, the community is ended. If one person were to divorce four other people, is the community ended? If one spouse dies, the other spouse inherits the community property. If one spouse dies, who inherits the community property? The remaining spouses or just one spouse? The underlying assumption in virtually all marital arrangements is the community consists of two people.
Comments are closed.