Carson's continued harping on marriage between same-sex couples is useful largely because he keeps saying such silly things. For example, from this interview:
"If you change the definition of marriage for one group, what defense do you have for the next group that comes along and wants it changed. Can you say, ‘no we’re just changing it this one time and it will this way for forever.’ Well, how is that fair? I mean, it doesn’t make any sense."
No, what you do is figure out what is the principle that you are establishing marriage for. Marriage equality hasn't triumphed socially or legally because it was "Feel sorry for the gays who are lobbying for it." It was because a consensus was reached that the fundamental concept of marriage was that of a consenting union between individuals to form a family, and the gender of the individuals involved didn't seem particularly germane …
… any more than the races of the participants were germane. Even though at one time many, many people, ostensibly good Christians, too, thought that God's plan for marriage involved keeping the races separate, and that to rule otherwise was to somehow willy-nilly change "the definition of marriage."
When Metaxes said allowing same-sex marriage would open up debate on the idea that marriage has to between two people, Carson said, “That’s the natural next question and on it goes from there.”
That is a worthwhile observation, and it's worth asking (a) does that seem to adhere to the principles involved, (b) does it raise other problems that plural marriage does not, and (c) why is that causing you to treat the prospect as the Disaster of the Ages (given the number of plural marriages in the Bible, not to mention concubinage)?
I don't think plural marriage is going to be a slam-dunk, because I think the complexities of the numbers involved don't make for as stable a situation (which flies in the face of why society has marriage in the first place). But I'm certainly willing to hear the arguments for it.
Carson said allowing same-sex marriage would mean the “word of God” would be changed on other things besides marriage too.
You say that, Ben, like (a) everyone agrees with you on what "the word of God" is on this, or any other, subject; (b) civil law must conform to the "word of God"; and (c) the "word of God" is fully reflected in our current laws (or in fact should be). Jesus spoke out strongly against divorce; should we amend our laws to eliminate that threat to marriage, too, based on the "word of God"?
"I would like them to answer just one question for me: What position can a person like me take," Carson posited, "who believes in the traditional, biblical definition of marriage, that is acceptable to them?"
How about, "If you don't believe that God allows people of the same gender to marry each other, then don't marry someone of the same gender"? If your church doesn't think that's right, then it shouldn't (and won't be made to) marry gay couples.
But there are a lot of marriages that take places that some folk consider to be immoral. Inter-faith marriages, for example. Or, heck, marriages celebrated under a different religious faith might be considered "invalid" by some lights. As noted, inter-racial marriages are still controversial, religiously, in some circles.
So what position does one take on such things? Most people simply tsk-tsk, shake their heads, and go about their business. Maybe you should give that a try, Ben.
Ben Carson: Same-Sex Marriage Leads To Plural Marriage, “And On It Goes From There”
“If you change the definition of marriage for one group what defense do you have for the next group that comes along and wants it changed.”
Like to hear what he says about divorce
I hear this a lot as "defense" but really the point is we don't care. Do both parties consent? Are they capable? There you go.
+Michelle Norton I think consenting partnerships is spot on. I think it's also not the way it often worked in the past (no matter what blurry, rose-colored glasses conservatives wear).
But, then, we aren't living in the past. For all the still-egregious problems of our modern era, I think there are some things we are getting very right.
He does realize that we changed the definition from "a man and woman of the same race," right? Think maybe that opened this door already?
+Scott Randel Though I hinted at that above, Carson is on the record saying that the two cases are completely different because being gay is, he believes, a choice (because some straight people have gay sex in prison, or something like that). Thus, clearly, laws against inter-racial marriages were wrong, but laws against same-sex marriages were perfectly justified. And handwaving about Natural Law.
Or something like that.