Dr. Ben Carson: The Secular Movement’s Promotion of LGBT Rights Endangers ‘Everything Else in the Bible’

At a conference in Illinois earlier this month, conservative neurosurgeon and Tea Party hero Dr. Ben Carson made some bold — though unoriginal — claims about the terror that same-sex marriage will surely bring upon society.

Speaking to the anti-LGBT-rights group Illinois Family Institute (IFI), Carson invoked the Biblical notion that the relationship between Jesus and his followers is a marriage. Clearly, he’s not okay with using the same terminology to describe committed, loving same-sex couples.

“Think about the implications of that,” he said. “When people come along and try to change the definition of marriage, they are directly attacking the relationship between God and his people.”

“And that’s the reason it’s so important for them to change the definition, because if you can get rid of that, you can get rid of everything else in the Bible too,” Carson warned.

“Changing the definition of marriage” — like we haven’t heard that one before. Although the concept of getting rid of everything in the Bible is pretty tempting, Carson doesn’t seem to acknowledge that we already have changed the definition of marriage. For one thing, marriage is no longer considered to be a business transaction in which a man acquires property. (At least most of us don’t think that way anymore.) And, as one YouTube commenter pointed out, the “marriage” between God and his people is also compared to a relationship between a master and his slaves.

For the record, Carson is the same guy who earlier suggested to Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that same-sex marriage was tantamount to pedophilia and bestiality. Tea Partiers also love him because of the time he took over President Barack Obama‘s National Prayer Breakfast with a lecture about taxes.

At the IFI conference, he lamented the “secular progressive movement” for establishing new societal standards that his fellow conservatives are too closed-minded to acknowledge. (The horror!)

In his speech to IFI on Friday, Carson opined that the “secular progressive movement” was like a “new group of mathematicians who come along and say, ‘Two plus two is five.’”

“The new ones say, ‘If it’s not five for you, you’re a mathophobe,’” he added. “We just have to continue to make it clear because they want to say that anybody who doesn’t believe what they believe is a hater.”

I don’t need to tell you how illogical and absurd this analogy is. If anything, this demonstrates that anti-equality advocates are simply running out of ideas. As we all know, the Bible is far from a leading source on the ethics of same-sex marriage, and even if it were, you can’t just pick and choose what portions of the Bible to follow. If being a secular progressive endangers these antiquated “morals,” I’m damn proud to call myself one.

About Camille Beredjick

Camille is a twentysomething working in the LGBT nonprofit industry. She runs an LGBT news blog at gaywrites.org.

  • C Peterson

    Yup. Every time another bit of the bible is shown to be a crock, it weakens the rest a little bit more. Not sure why the LGBT thing is that big a deal, though, given the thousands of other parts already demonstrated to be crazy or outright wrong. At this point, the challenge is finding something useful or valid, not finding yet more bullshit.

    • EdmondWherever

      I think the little numbers at the bottom of the pages are still relatively accurate on how many sheets are in the book. Otherwise, I wouldn’t trust the rest.

      • icecreamassassin

        Wow – you’re right! The numbers follow a mathematical order of some kind…such beauty; such precision.

        Clearly the work of a divine author. I’m sold. Checkmate, atheists!

        • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

          This comment wins.

        • ShoeUnited

          But the numbers on the pages don’t account for the table of contents, the forward, the copyright page, the extra spacer page(s), or any afterwards or glossaries. So the number count is wrong.

  • KMR

    The guy’s a brilliant surgeon. He should stick with his medical practice and inspiring people to reach for the stars despite any obstacle put in their way. That’s what he’s good at. This kind of stuff just makes him look stupid and he’s not.

    • islandbrewer

      Oh, I’ve met a lot of stupid smart people, most often when religion becomes a part of their worldview. Otherwise brilliant minds will shut their brains off when crossing some sort of conceptual line, and become complete idiots.

      • KMR

        The fundamentalists are what get me. I can get how someone can be progressive (Francis Collins for example). But for smart fundamentalists…the only thing I can think of is that some people really can’t break from what they are taught by society (which in most cases bodes us all quite well). They’re simply not made that way and it is a separate skill set from intelligence.

    • kaydenpat

      Agreed. His inspirational story is what first attracted him to me many years ago. Sad how he’s taken such a bizarre right turn.

      • KMR

        It is. There is so much to respect in regards to his career. I imagine arrogance is playing much into his recent foray into politics. It happens time and time again and I’m always amazed at how those who are supremely talented in one area of their lives assume that the same talent gives them special insight into a totally different arena. It seldom does and then they inevitably become a mockery, their past great achievements overshadowed by their present ignorance.

  • Mario Strada

    Brain surgeon? Well, it’s not like it’s Rocket Science.

    • GubbaBumpkin

      Oh, it’s rocket science you want? Then you should turn to Mark Psiaki, doing his best to confirm the Salem conjecture.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Ugh. The Salem Hypothesis is confirmed so frequently that I noticed it before I had ever heard the name, just by debating local yokels. It’s bizarre.

    • ShoeUnited

      Though, Rocketskate Neurosurgery takes considerably more skill.

  • Sven2547

    Heliocentrism endangers everything else in the Bible!

    • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

      Words with greek or latin roots endagers everything in the Bible!!!

    • icecreamassassin

      Observation of reality endangers everything else in the bible!

    • Golfie98

      The Bible endangers everything else in the Bible

  • more compost

    Ben Carson has repeatedly shown himself to be either a shameless liar or quite stupid. Either way, his comments should never be the cause for anything but scorn.

  • Bdole

    I’m positively stymied by truly smart people, in (something akin to) science who hold idiotic views like this. I’m not sure what Francis Collins believes, but his reasons for believing in Jesus as put forth in his book were weak sauce. How can these smart people be so stupid?

  • Bdole

    In his speech to IFI on Friday, Carson opined that the “secular progressive movement” was like a “new group of mathematicians who come along and say, ‘Two plus two is five.’”

    Like those “monotheists” who insist that 1+1+1=1

    • Ron

      They attribute this to the magical power of “imaginary” numbers.

      • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

        Maybe the (w)Hol(e)y Ghost is -1, in which case 1+1-1=1

      • trj

        Ha, I like that. Seems fitting that we should use imaginary numbers to describe God. So if God is one, then God squared would be minus God.

        This explains how a loving God could do all those awful things in the Bible. Whenever God is a square (which, let’s face it, is most of the time) he becomes anti-God, the anti-loving God!

    • TCC

      liberal atheists avoid the subject like the plauge (sic)

      [citation needed]

    • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

      I live in the U.S. and Christianity, not Islam has a grip on the minds of the nation and its leaders. Christianity, not Islam drives the misguided laws, public policies, and bigotries that directly affect me and my friends. So I oppose the people who promote those laws, policies, and bigotries as a result of their religion, which happens to be Christianity. There aren’t very many Muslims in the U.S. who are powerfully influencing laws and public policy. If that ever begins and if their influence is destructive and harmful, I’ll oppose them too. It’s not a particular religion that I object to. I oppose superstitious and irrational thinking that can cause great harm when it has the power of the government behind it.

      I find the concepts of Christianity and Islam equally ridiculous, but there’s not much I can do about the plight of the gay people or the women in Saudi Arabia. I do what I can here at home, where I have at least some influence.

      But just to satisfy you,

      ISLAM SUCKS!

      There. Nothing happened to me, and I have not changed anything.
      But I can continue to oppose those people here at home who are working hard to impose their reprehensible beliefs onto me, my friends, and my country, trying to turn it into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.

      • Hat Stealer

        And Muhammad Ali is a Muslim. So your problem is with professional boxing, not religion.

      • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

        Your reply makes no sense. Like your replies to others, it’s a non sequitur. You’re a troll. I’ll not be feeding your narcissism any more. Stop polluting this blog.

    • David S.

      That’s a logical fallacy, and a childish one at that. Whatever the Muslims do does not make what Christians do righteous. I don’t have to defend Islam; it’s completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

    • Raising_Rlyeh

      It’s the math of Clue

    • diogeneslamp0

      “Vote me down, call me names.”

      ‘Kay, I voted you down, moron. Christians constantly tell us how nice and harmless they are– they’re only vice is that they’re too darn nice and tolerant! Compared to… whom? Uh, Muslims.

      Really? When PZ Myers crumbled a communion wafer, he also crumpled pages of the Quran and threw them both in the trash. He got 10,000 death threats from Christians and none from Muslims. Even the Christians who threatened to kill Myers (which no Muslim had) bragged about how Christians had the flaw of being too darn nice and nonviolent, compared to nasty bad Muslims. Aw you miltant egomaniacs are so sweet!

      • Niall Hosking

        Conservatives would rather have bodies pile up *and* be proudly racist with their peers.
        Boston bombers, Timothy McVeigh, who cares? They were sick, religiously twisted individuals. It doesn’t matter if they think that Hansel and Gretel, or The Princess and the Pea are the ‘One True Fairy-tale”.

      • Sweetredtele

        I didn’t realize all Atheists were liberals.

        What a non-seq.

        Christianity is an easy target because it keeps shoving its broadside in my face.

    • Kevin_Of_Bangor

      He was a sexy bitch..

      • Kevin_Of_Bangor

        I present to you, my ass in a thong. How does that make you feel?

    • Bdole

      “liberal atheists avoid the subject like the plague.”
      OK, but what does this have to do with math?

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Here is the full quote

    “We just have to continue to make it clear because they want to say that anybody who doesn’t believe what they believe is a hater.” Dr. Carson continued, “However, anyone who doesn’t believe what we believe is a hater. Do you see how silly their position is? Come on, how can you be a hater, if you hate gay people? If you don’t hate the gays, women, or anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, then you’re a hater. It’s just the inverse-transitive property of mathity. So remember, two plus two is equal to Obama-Mulsim-Ruin-America-Jesus-Christ!!!”

  • Art_Vandelay

    Man, our existence is really pissing a lot of people off lately, isn’t it? Great work, everyone! Keep on…you know…existing.

    • allein

      I’m existing right now!

      • Art_Vandelay

        And you can type at the same time? Impressive.

        • allein

          I am very talented.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          That’s nothing, I can exist in my sleep!

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      Thanks. I plan on existing for quite a few more years.

  • http://nwrickert.wordpress.com/ Neil Rickert

    I don’t get why fundies are so obsessed with LGBT issues. They don’t even get a mention in their Ten Commandments.

    • ShoeUnited

      I’ve long suspected it’s the fox and grapes. People hate what they cannot have.

    • David S.

      They could lecture their people about coveting, not taking care of the poor and immigrants or … they could spend their time attacking people who are outside their congregation who they don’t have to worry about offending. Much more comfortable.

    • David S.

      I’ll point out the quote by John Adams that runs: “we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      is often quoted without its second sentence. Because it’s easy to judge those atheists and irreligious, but condemning avarice and ambition is beyond the pale.

  • Cake

    Here I thought it was just plain old reality that endangered everything in the Bible.

  • cyb pauli

    I am convinced that people who are attracted to the neurosciences are so because they can sense something is terribly wrong with their brains.

    (I include myself in that, to be fair)

  • Discordia

    The bible doesn’t really say anything against two women being together, just two men.
    So the relationship between Jesus and His followers, including the male followers, is a marriage? So if Jesus and female followers are married and men can marry women, then how is it bad for men to marry men?

    • tyler

      heck, the story of ruth (where the most popular wedding verses come from) is positively sapphic

      • Discordia

        Very much sapphic.

        If I remember correctly, I think the Bible uses “feet” as an euphemism for genitals.

        Ruth: “I’m here under your skirt because you boned me last night”

        Boaz: (hung-over and not remembering last night) “Uh…. ok.”

        While the loyalty verses are nice, the whole marriage was entrapment….. a sexist cliche if there ever was one.

        • Greg G.

          What are we to make of Jesus washing his disciple’s, um, “feet”? (Matthew 26:14-39; Luke 22:24-27; John 13:1-17).

          John 13:14 New International Version (NIV)
          14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet.

          • Discordia

            Um…. well….. I suppose….. ah… *holds the snark back only with difficulty*

            Practicing good hygiene? Don’t they say that cleanliness is next to godliness?

            Maybe in that case, a foot was just a foot?

          • 3lemenope

            Koine Greek did not use the same euphemisms as ancient Hebrew.

            In this case, I’m willing to bet a foot is just a foot.

        • TCC

          You’re not wrong on the euphemism part, but you clearly have a different definition of “sapphic” than I’m aware of. (Well, or you’re not aware that Boaz is a dude.)

          • Discordia

            Ruth
            Chapter One

            (Naomi and her daughters-in-law are all widows, thanks to a famine, and she is trying to convince them to return to their parents and not stay with her.)

            1:11 And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
            1:12 Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons;
            1:13 Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the LORD is gone out against me.
            1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
            1:15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
            1:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
            1:17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
            1:18 When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her.

            ***********************
            And to whom, pray tell, did Ruth speak those sapphic words?

            • TCC

              I’m aware of the story of Ruth and Naomi. I’m also not convinced that the above is really sapphic (just as I’m skeptical of such definitive homosexual readings of David and Jonathan’s relationship). Homosocial, yes; sapphic…eh.

              In any case, though, you referenced the Ruth/Boaz part of the story, which is decidedly not sapphic.

              • Discordia

                My first comment was in agreement with tyler. I do see where Ruth making such a pledge to her mother in law could be seen as sapphic and I think it is funny that people use those verses in a pledge between a man and a woman when the original pledge was between a woman and a woman. If Ruth loved her MIL and considered her to be her Mother, then there is nothing wrong with her making such a pledge. I fail to see how anyone loving someone else that much is a bad thing as long as it is mutual. Sapphic is a bit of hairsplitting to me, even though that section does also contain a verse about how Ruth clove unto Naomi and some people have insinuated that it means that they were sexually involved because somewhere around Genesis 2:24 there are verses about how a man will leave his parents and cleave unto his wife. Personally I think it is a stretch, because you can stick by someone without having sex with them, but some people use it to support the argument that Ruth and Naomi had a little something-something on the side.

                My second, the one after that paragraph break and including the snippet of my breakdown on the verbal intercourse Ruth and Boaz had, was my commentary on how he Bible uses ‘feet’ frequently instead of just saying genitals, and how Ruth uncovered Boaz’s junk and slept beside him so that he would think that he balled her the night before. As he ended up buying her for his wife after this entrapment was the cause for my last commentary on how that story is one of, wait for it, the sexist ‘joke’ about how women entrap men in marriage.

                So yes, the part of Ruth/Boaz I referenced wasn’t sapphic, just sexist, although I am hard pressed to find much in the Bible that isn’t.

                • TCC

                  Someone else referenced the “most popular wedding verses” coming from Ruth, but I have to be honest, I’ve been to plenty of weddings (mostly as an accompanist), and I can’t recall ever hearing it. I mean, Ruth’s profession of devotion is a strong one, sure, but I think most Christians are aware that it’s not a statement of romantic love. Genesis 2:24, on the other hand, is probably tied with various verses of I Corinthians 13 for the most common ones I’m familiar with.

                  As for the “cleave” comment (which I’m aware you might not be making as your own), that really seems like a stretch. For one, the Hebrew word (dabaq) is the same in both the Genesis verse and in Ruth 1, but it is used to mean something other than “to be united” elsewhere in the book of Ruth (and similarly in Genesis), so it should not necessarily be taken as a linguistically resonant use, as (for example) using the phrase “by any other name” is generally meant to evoke Romeo’s monologue.

                  I don’t have much to add on your commentary of the very peculiar “uncovering Boaz’s feet” story in Ruth, which could be read in a more positive light (Ruth putting herself in a vulnerable and submissive position) but can’t avoid being a bizarre way to get yourself married.

                • Discordia

                  I’ve not been to that many weddings and I think that I may have heard it used once. Maybe. I would not think that Ruth’s statement is anything other than that of a young woman who truly loves her MIL as though she was her mother. And that cleave/clove bit, to me, is just Ruth clinging onto Naomi in a steadfast refusal to leave her side.

                  The idea that one word in any language just means ONE thing is ridiculous to me. I am sure you are familiar with several who’s meanings change depending upon context.

                  I have heard that ‘thigh’ and ‘foot’ both referenced male genitalia in many (not all) sections of the Bible. (Of course, I don’t have a single reference to support this and since you don’t know me, my word is worthless to you.) I suspect that this could be attributed in part to the prudery of later translators changing words to avoid any connections to the evil sin of SEX!! (gasp!) Pasta knows how many verses they changed or deleted, and we already know that there are a number of chapters and verses that are out and out forgeries.

                  As far as Ruth/Boaz ‘shotgun wedding’, I think Naomi picked him because he was a decent dude who would take care of them both. Naomi knew he wouldn’t be an awful person for Ruth to hook up with.

                  In conclusion, we have learned 1) that anyone can use the Bible to prove just about any point they wish to make and 2) we are arguing over the interpretation of fairy tales.

                  xoxo
                  Dis

                • TCC

                  The idea that one word in any language just means ONE thing is ridiculous to me. I am sure you are familiar with several who’s meanings change depending upon context.

                  Not only am I aware of polysemy, that was precisely the point I was making: The fact that the same word (well, the same root) is used doesn’t mean that there is a compelling argument to connect the obvious physical union of the Genesis 2 verse with Ruth’s statement of devotion because that word has multiple uses.

                  For the edification of the general commentariat, a reference on Hebrew euphemisms and the Strong’s concordance entry on yarek (“thigh”). I do want to emphasize that these are specifically Hebrew euphemisms, though; I don’t know if any similar Koine Greek terms in the NT retain a similar euphemistic meaning, and it is also clear that not every use of these Hebrew words is likely euphemistic.

                  One last quibble: We are arguing over the interpretation of myths (and I use that term in the generic sense, i.e. to refer to a genre of literature). I’m not at all ashamed by that, either; I like discussing interpretations of literature.

                • Discordia

                  Just before I read your Disqus mailed reply, I was thinking about this exchange and on the interpretation of myths, which lead me to thinking about how many different variations of popular myths there are, and how each of them changes from region to region. THEN I wondered if someone had done some sort of study to find a possible correlation between cultural/regional views on morality and how those influence the telling of myths/stories. Like how language drifts, but only with stories, and using those as some sort of guide on how morals shift. Like dendrochronology, only harder.

                  It is obvious enough that there are about 5000 different variations (pardon the hyperbole) of the Holy Bible out there one can purchase and it seems to me that the interpretation of each is influenced by the cultural morals of the interpreters. Well, that and whatever ulterior power-grabbing scheme they have going on. I imagine it would be harder to do such research though, given both the changes in languages (‘nice’ used to be a bad thing to be called) and culture and technology which renders some words obsolete or, at least, completely different in a span of just 100 years.

                  It is also obvious that I either ignored your point or just did not catch it, and for that, I apologize. I am not sure which would be worse, missing it or ignoring it. :(

                  spiteandlogic at gmail dot com if you care to continue this away from the forum because this seems to be getting off-topic. It isn’t my main email but I check it fairly often.

      • ShoeUnited

        Just throwing this into the mix, Ruth was a prostitute. Which is kinda funny because God hated whores in the OT.

        • Discordia

          But he made his mom engage in whoredom by knocking her up while she was engaged to another dude!!

        • TCC

          I believe you’re mistaken (you might be mixing her up with Rahab, the prostitute involved in the Hebrew espionage prior to the attack on Jericho). In any case, though, there’s actually a running theme of prostitutes being redeemed, such as Rahab and Gomer, the wife of the prophet Hosea, which is supposed to be symbolic of the unfaithfulness of the Israelites and their continued redemption. It’s not exactly a glowing endorsement of prostitution.

  • invivoMark

    The Secular Movement’s Promotion of LGBT Rights Endangers ‘Everything Else in the Bible’

    Good!

  • Simon3456

    I soooo *wish* the “secular movement” was what had this person up in arms. Alas, he was referring to the right-wing media creation (Bill O’Reilly wrote a book about) of the “secular progressive” movement which is basically anyone outside the Christian right.

  • God’s Starship

    Eh…. I’m not ever going to argue the point. He’s just stupid. Everybody whose opinion matters knows he’s stupid.

  • new_atheist

    “anybody who doesn’t believe what they believe is a hater.”

    You worship a being who says anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe deserves to be tortured for all eternity beyond all human comprehension. You don’t exactly have a moral leg to stand on in this fight.

  • Matt D

    His argument is indeed absurd, and pointing this out tirelessly will be more effective than getting upset. Whether he’s just mean spirited or troubled, I don’t care, but it should be obvious to anyone with sense that he’s creating invisible enemies in order to make his religious seem “threatened”.

  • eric

    Carson invoked the Biblical notion that the relationship between Jesus and his followers is a marriage

    I’m facepalming!!! Why hasn’t the pro-gay-rights side thought of using this before???
    If conservatives think it’s wonderful for Ben Carson to be married to Jesus, then don’t they already endorse same sex marriage?

    • Greg G.

      I was told and verified that when you use the blockquote tag and then type more than one line, you get a different font for the first paragraph. If you put a space after the close blockquote tag, the next paragraph will have the regular font. I don’t know why but perhaps there are theological explanations for this phenomenon.

      • allein

        I’ve always wondered about that…I figured it was just one of those mystery things…

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    Yes, I know the Bible is against the man on man sex. (Woman on woman doesn’t come up much.) But it really doesn’t come up that often. There’s a lot more about adultery and divorce. It’s interesting they don’t talk about those more…oh wait, their patron saint Ronnie Reagan was divorced (and Nancy was about five months pregnant when he married her). Oops. Guess THAT can’t be a moral issue. Never mind.

    • Gus

      Well, technically, premarital sex is not adultery, nor is it against any rule in the Bible. So the pregnancy wouldn’t have been a problem. But try telling them that. They’re totally convinced that women have to stay “pure” until marriage when the Bible says no such thing.

      • closetatheist

        Actually…Levitical law stipulates that if a woman is found to not be a virgin on her wedding night she should be stoned. In another area it states that a marriage is invalid if the woman is not a virgin. During the time of Christ a woman found to be pregnant before marriage could also be stoned to death – plenty of motivation to invent a supernatural theory, if she even existed.

        • Gus

          Right, but that’s a property crime, Biblically speaking. The daughter has damaged her father’s property before it could be properly sold to another man to dispose of as he saw fit. As long as the man who took part in the property damage bought the property, that was generally OK. So Nancy would be off the hook. And Mary too, assuming Joseph was the father…

          So it’s not premarital sex that’s forbidden, it’s property damage that’s not paid for.

          And none of that is adultery. Adultery is when a woman damages her husband’s property by getting knocked up by another man.

          These notion’s of what constitutes property are those of the authors of the Bible, not me.

  • Ron

    … they are directly attacking the relationship between God and his people.

    Exactly! I mean what’s not to love about the “love-honor-and-worship-me-exclusively-or-else-I’ll-sadistically-torture-you-forever” kind of relationship envisaged by the authors of the Bible? It’s pure romance.

  • Gus

    So basically, he thinks we actually believe in the Bible magic of Jesus marriage and want to work evil counter magic to destroy it all? Because seriously, we got rid of everything in the Bible by applying logic, reason, and evidence. We don’t need magic, even if we believed in it.

  • OverlappingMagisteria

    Jesus is married to his followers. Bob is a follower of Jesus. Jesus is gay married to Bob.

    Why are you trying to ruin the Bible, Jesus?!?!

    • ShoeUnited

      Jesus loves to cuddle.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004052694896 Jack Dowell

    As we all know, the Bible is far from a leading source on the ethics of same-sex marriage

    Yeah, I don’t think the “of same-sex marriage” part is really needed there to make the sentence accurate.

  • Anathema

    Carson’s argument makes absolutely no sense unless you make several assumptions:

    1) That the modern institution of marriage is identical to the model of marriage found in the Bible.

    2) That marriage was originally primarily a religious rather than a civil affair.

    3) That marriage was an invention of the followers of the Abrahamic God and thus no other cultures independently invented marriage.

    4) That denying equal rights to people is an important aspect of the relationship between the Abrahamic God and his followers.

    Assumptions 1-3 are just blatantly wrong. Assumption 4, unfortunately, seems to hold true in far too many situations.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Oh noez! This will endanger the claim that you can breed animals with stripes and speckles by putting sticks near their watering trough (Genesis 30).

    • allein

      I have a striped cat with speckles on her belly…hmm….

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        You should have kept your “stick” away from her “watering trough”… or something. Modern SECULAR society doesn’t understand CONSEQUENCES.

        • allein

          lol..Well she was born on my cousin’s boat…who knows where she was conceived…

          • islandbrewer

            Well, obviously some cat was sticking their stick in some trough.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    How did someone so paranoid and who thinks that free markets will solve every problem become a neurosurgeon?

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Great eyes, great hands… not to denigrate him on that count, but I imagine a huge part of his job is simply cutting where he is told to cut (oversimplified, I know) by other, similarly gifted and dedicated professionals.

    • smrnda

      Easy, compartmentalization. It’s what leads a guy like Steve Jobs, who knows a bit about engineering and business to go into alt-med when he’s sick. People can be experts in a specialized field and then totally fail to apply logic and reason outside of it.

      And, seconding what CL Honeycutt said, doctors tend to be people who memorize facts and learn procedures, they don’t necessarily discover or invent new things, so their approach to gaining or evaluating knowledge may be more prone to arguments from authority/tradition than say, a scientist. This is how I suspect that you get engineers who can be creationists.

    • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

      Similarly to C.L.Honeycutt and smrnda, I’ve come to realize that physicians do not necessarily think like scientists. Physicians are very skilled technicians who apply medical science to a patient. They might be able to think scientifically, but that’s not guaranteed just because of their job. Medical science is developed by medical researchers, who definitely have to think scientifically.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    If only we were as powerful as the poor persecuted Xians think we are.

    Give that privileged status to us for at least a year and I bet we could leverage that to dominate the world till the sun explodes.

  • JT Rager

    Funnily enough, that’s more or less how I converted. I kept having to justify why I didn’t think the Bible matched my morals on the treatment on LGBTs, and why that was ok and I could still be a Christian. Eventually I ended up throwing out the Bible altogether. Why should I have to follow it in the first place?

  • Rain

    “Think about the implications of that,”

    Wow, talk bout 2+2=5. Think up bizarre unfounded thingy, and then think about the implications of it. He’s way better at 2+2=5 than those other imaginary new math people of his are. Good job lol.

  • dcl3500

    “Carson invoked the Biblical notion that the relationship between Jesus and his followers is a marriage. ”

    Last time I looked, there are a lot of Jesus’ followers that are men. Jesus was supposedly a man. So Jesus is married to a lot of men. Voilà, gay marriage is not redefining marriage at all.

    • Niall Hosking

      Which also implies that the only ‘true’ marriage is to Jesus, not to any other human. On the other hand, that sounds rather Pauline…

  • smrnda

    I can’t believe that a guy who would advance such idiotic arguments acquired the skill to become a surgeon. Compartmentalization is quite an impressive phenomenon…

  • ShoeUnited

    But two plus two does equal five. And sometimes three. For certain values of two…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

  • Neil Schmidt

    If marriage is a great and holy thing, then we are committing the most heinous blasphemy every time we untie our shoes. After all, a knot is two lines married together and if only God can part them, we as humans are defying his will on a daily basis. I do wish these religious wing nuts would make the distinction between marriage and holy matrimony. They are two different entities.

  • Gitte

    “Bible is far from a leading source on the ethics of same-sex marriage.” Or a lot of other things that they conveniently ignore. There are many things in the bible that should be endangered. Rendered extinct would be better.

  • ImRike

    “Carson invoked the Biblical notion that the relationship between Jesus and his followers is a marriage.”
    So there is only a relationship between Jesus and his female followers? No relationship between men and Jesus – that would sure cause some horrible terror!

  • gg

    I’m just glad his mother is dead. If it were possible, she would be turning in her grave. I wonder what all of his siblings think about the crap he spouts.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X