Michele Bachmann and Piers Morgan spar about gay marriage

posted at 12:45 pm on March 6, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Last night on his show, Piers Morgan hosted Michele Bachmann for the full hour and, in one segment, tried pointedly to elicit her reaction to recent controversial comments from actor Kirk Cameron.

Last week, Cameron told Morgan he thinks homosexuality is “unnatural and … detrimental and … ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” Cameron’s remarks shocked not only Morgan, but also the online universe: The exchange trended on Twitter for about 36 hours.

Perhaps in an effort to repeat that PR success (what good free pub for Piers!), Morgan last night again and again asked Bachmann about her views on gay marriage. Bachmann initially attempted to deflect the subject entirely with a simple statement: “I’m here as a member of Congress; I’m not here as anybody’s judge.”

That statement was certainly uncharacteristic of candidate Bachmann,  who willingly engaged on any issue, but not necessarily uncharacteristic of Congresswoman Bachmann, who, at various points in her career, has demonstrated a remarkable ability to stay focused on a particular issue of passion. Her role in the fight against Obamacare is proof enough of that. Last night, she clearly wanted most to talk about the security threats that face the nation and about jobs and the economy — and she saw the gay marriage debate as a distraction.

Still, Piers persisted, suggesting that Bachmann has been “judgmental” in the past, to which Bachmann took offense. Eventually, the show host evoked a bit of fire from the congressw0man. She brought up the double standard against advocates of “traditional values” and submitted that rhetoric is more heated against the religious than it is against gays.

Shortly thereafter, Bachmann declined to engage further. “I think I’ve had enough of this conversation,” she said, still smiling. “We’ve beaten this horse to death.”

A few thoughts:

  1. This interview reminds me why I love Michele Bachmann. She’s well-spoken but still lively. She might maintain eye contact for unnaturally long spans of time, as Saturday Night Live’s Kristen Wiig portrays her, but she never sounds like a robot. She always sounds human and projects warmth and integrity.
  2. The interview is also a nice piece of evidence that it’s not GOPers who are obsessed with social issues. Fact is, folks like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann can’t not engage on social issues because (a) MSM interviewers will never not bring them up and (b) MSM interviewers won’t just let conservative opinions stand; they’ll push for an explanation. When’s the last time you’ve seen an interview like this in reverse — a show host pushing a lib for an explanation as to why they support gay marriage?
  3. Given No. 2, GOPers might be better served to just engage on social issues without shame. These are debates conservatives could and should own — in part by turning them around. They say it’s bad TV form to ask questions of the interviewer, but that might be what we conservatives need to begin to do. “Tell me, Piers, why do you think the definition of marriage is malleable? What about homosexual relationships is the same as heterosexual relationships? What’s different?” We don’t need to ask “gotcha” questions, either; we just need to ensure that we don’t debate an issue until the two sides establish their underlying assumptions.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Another conspiracy theorist! Oh yes, it’s all just a big plan to legalize incest. You caught us!

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Actually, if you look at this manifesto from the leadership of the gay and lesbian community, incest, plural relationships, and many other things are what the gay and lesbian community wants.

As far as it being put into practice, look on the signatories page; you will there find Chai Feldblum — currently a commissioner of the EEOC with some rather interesting quotes.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Michelle Bachmann is worthy of respect and is typical of the Republican women I have been associated with. They are found everywhere: they are MD’s, CPA”s. Attorneys. Teachers. RN’s, Bankers,etc and are the heart and soul of America! It is repugnant the way the sex-crazed, perverted, Democrats attempt to denigrate their character!! Remember in November!!

Marco on March 6, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Yup. Simple answer: Because homosexuality is not deviant sex, is a normal expression of human sexuality (as defined by the APA, APA, AMA, ACA, etc. medical community) and does not have the negative social impacts of polygamy, rape or incestual relationships.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM

You mean the same organizations that used to classify homosexuality the same way?

Because an incestuous relationship and a non-incestuous relationship are two different things? Do you not have the ability to separate those two things in your mind? You can easily make a law that separates those two things. No one is pushing for incestuous marriage to be legal. I don’t know why you are trying to defend incest, but have fun with that.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Yes, of course it is possible, but why? Just cause they’re different? Is that really all you’ve got? Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals, why is that not enough?

And yes, some people are, but they still have to fight for the right to incest in the first place. Those people are still jailed for a sex act between consenting adults.

Esthier on March 6, 2012 at 5:09 PM

You are kidding, right? You, as an attorney, are trying to tell me that it would be impossible to write a law that would distinguish same sex marriage from incestuous same sex marriage? I will do it right now “You can get married to a person of the same sex as long as you are not blood-related.” Hey look, I did it! It took a whole 5 seconds. I hope you didn’t pay much for that law school.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Oh, any idiot can scribble a law in 30 seconds, but will a court uphold it?

So what is your justification/rationale for your new law, Senator sob0728, such that you would discriminate against them? Cause you said so? You find it icky, personally? Are you using your “morality”? What HARM are you preventing? It’s their private life, of no concern of yours, right? When homosexuality was found more “legally permissive”, the same justifications applied to that behavior as to incest, bestiality, pedo, etc. When those “moral” justifications weakened for homosexuality, they weakened for all classifications. Duh. Thus, pedo is now wrong due to a legal definition of consent. But if we, say, redefine consent so that it can be made by a 12 year old girl, like the consent to abortion at that age, then all of a sudden, a 12 year old is fair game. Besides, I’m sure we can find some stats that say it’s not the sex act that hurts, but SOCIETY’S view of it, right? Worked for the gays. Same with incest, hell, incest has more of a shot.

See, when you pass a law limiting freedom, or classify behavior as criminal, you have to have a justification. Now I know the left just loves passing laws without reading them, or checking their practical effects, but, really, what’s your legal justification?

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 5:09 PM

No, I just sometime’s struggle with intolerant people when I’m not in a nice mood. Because when dealing with intolerant people, such as yourself, it’s always nice to reflect upon how you’re the cause of the destruction of the lives of a fair number of my friends and acquaintances.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Yes, because of course, their own choices have nothing to do with their problems. Nothing at all.

Because gays and lesbians like ZachV and his friends have the mental capacity of children, given that they need advertising censored to keep them from hurting themselves.

And it’s particularly funny when you see how gays and lesbians like ZachV who shriek about hurting gay and lesbian people then turn around and call for the death of all Republicans.

It’s all a victim game of a bunch of spoiled brats who don’t want to work, don’t want to take responsibility for their actions, and think society should hand them life on a platter because of what they are, not what they do.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Yup. Simple answer: Because homosexuality is not deviant sex, is a normal expression of human sexuality (as defined by the APA, APA, AMA, ACA, etc. medical community) and does not have the negative social impacts of polygamy, rape or incestual relationships.

You mean the same organizations that used to classify homosexuality the same way?

Esthier on March 6, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Yup. Thanks for bringing that up? (Were you trying to be helpful?) It’s no secret that the medical community turned face as knowledge of the human mind and our psychology advanced. What we know today verses a few decades ago, verses even before that is impressive.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Marriage =
1. one man + one woman (No Legal/Health Reasons)
2. both 18 or over ( You have to be 18 to sign a contract)
3. both not married to any other (Legally one contract at a time)
4. neither of close blood relation (leads to health problems)

Now if you’re willing to take out rule #1, why must the other three stay in place? If #1 is bigotted, then so is 2, 3 and 4.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2012 at 1:53 PM

————

I dont see how 2-3-4 and have to do with 1. I can go to vegas right now and marry some girl I meet at the club just for giggles but two women who have been loving and faithfull to each other for 15 years cant get married because of what?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:19 PM

It’s not a matter of writing the language. It’s a matter of justifying the language – since it’s so bigoted.

Again, how do you justify such bigoted language?!?!?

blink on March 6, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Heh. Exactly.

Oh man, I get “pleasure” from beating these people over the head with their own justifications. It has a downside, though – I give them the ammo they’ll inevitably use to legalize pedo, incest, etc. Unfortunately, my sarcastic argument today is their Supreme Court brief tomorrow.

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual are in the closet. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Yup. Thanks for bringing that up? (Were you trying to be helpful?) It’s no secret that the medical community turned face as knowledge of the human mind and our psychology advanced. What we know today verses a few decades ago, verses even before that is impressive.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Oh, lets not forget the political (or personal) bias of those re-writing the definitions so a behavior they partake in or approve of is no longer “deviant”. Crazy” is no longer crazy when the loon gets to write the guidebook.

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 5:24 PM

See, when you pass a law limiting freedom, or classify behavior as criminal, you have to have a justification. Now I know the left just loves passing laws without reading them, or checking their practical effects, but, really, what’s your legal justification?

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Miraculously you have just redefined the age of consent to 12, which is apparently going to happen once same sex marriages are legal.

And here is some legal info for you to ponder:

“Outside of the fact that the slippery slope is called a logical fallacy for a reason, these stances ignore the very basics of both contract and Constitutional law.

Since it is a contract, marriage requires something very important: consent from both parties. A dog cannot consent to a contract under any circumstances, so a person cannot marry a dog.

Currently, it is most likely that laws prohibiting gay marriage will be reviewed under rational basis scrutiny. If that is the case, a court would need to determine that preventing gay marriage is arbitrary, or in other words that there is no rational basis it provides and is only prohibited because gay people give some straight people the heebie jeebies. But clearly laws prohibiting incest and bigamy do have a rational basis. Incest has a unique problem because can lead to children with all sorts of nasty birth defects, but bigamy and incest share a big problem as well: oftentimes engaging in those act lead to child victims. Protecting children from the terrible situations that bigamy and incest often lead to is clearly a rational basis that is not arbitrary.

Even if the courts determined that laws preventing gay marriage should be subject to strict scrutiny, that still would not prevent the enactment and enforcement of laws that prevent bigamy and incest. On the one hand, if courts determined that sexual orientation was a suspect classification, its determination in that case would only apply to gay marriages. On the other hand, even if the courts determine that marriage is a fundamental right, protecting children from the harm that often results from bigamous and incestuous relations is a compelling government interest, and the only way to enforce that is to make those sorts of relationships illegal.”

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Yup. Thanks for bringing that up? (Were you trying to be helpful?) It’s no secret that the medical community turned face as knowledge of the human mind and our psychology advanced. What we know today verses a few decades ago, verses even before that is impressive.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Not trying to be anything, but the fact that it’s evolving would not make it an ideal candidate for me personally to explain why some relationships are OK but others are not.

Yes, we have come a long way, but doesn’t that also just show how much we likely still don’t know?

Esthier on March 6, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual are in the closet. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Many people say something similar of atheists. Not sure how accurate either are.

Esthier on March 6, 2012 at 5:32 PM

The question continues to be “Why do they continue to go on these shows?” It is insanity. They cannot win, with the exception of Gingrich, and even he is vulnerable to soundbite technology.

Ken James on March 6, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Oh man, I get “pleasure” from beating these people over the head with their own justifications. It has a downside, though – I give them the ammo they’ll inevitably use to legalize pedo, incest, etc. Unfortunately, my sarcastic argument today is their Supreme Court brief tomorrow.

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 5:20 PM

See above where you get beaten over the head. Repeatedly. Santorum is not around to vote for anymore, so who ya got?

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Yes, because of course, their own choices have nothing to do with their problems. northdallasthirty on March 6, 2012 at 5:11 PM

You know what, I’m sorry that I was born 20-30 years after you. I’m sorry that I live in Wisconsin, instead of Texas. I’m am truly sorry that you had to go through all of the persecution that I didn’t have to, because of all of the blood, sweat and tears the previous generation put in into creating a better world for me.

But you are just so spiteful, so abrasively uncomfortable with gays and lesbians that I literally don’t even know how to respond to you. What you had done to you, how you’re probably still facing discrimination living in a homophobic of a place such as Dallas: I honestly can’t even begin to imagine.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Seems every blog by Tina reads like a Campus Crusade for Christ newsletter – I sure miss when AP used to call the shots around here.

JFS61 on March 6, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Agree 100%.

Michelle Malkin never backed down from these issues, but her approach is more working under the belief that she holds a morally correct higher ground and feels little need to proselytize.

Hot Air never had a social conservatism first agenda while AP, and Ed were running the show. I even recall posts supporting GOProud’s inclusion into CPAC at one point. It wasn’t a blog for Christian and family-themed Socially Conservative content.

If there was ever a question how the content would change with the ownership change, we’re seeing the answer.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 6, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual are in the closet. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

No, I’m quite heterosexual. I just call it like it is, I don’t spend time spinning something to be what it’s not. “One of these things is not like the other”, no matter how I’m brainwashed otherwise.

I used to be quite OK with “gay marriage”, before I learned the social and legal effects of it, and saw that most homosexual groups on campus RECRUITED others, with fliers encouraging experimentation. Hard to experiment with a born sexual orientation, huh? I can’t experiment with being black, right?

Why must someone you disagree with be a monster, or a Nazi, or a closet case? Is that not a offensive term?

And again, we as a general society are begin asked (forced) to OK a behavior, to approve of it, to find it co-equal to a millennia-long accepted practice, to change said practice to include it. Why won’t we leave “you” alone? Cause “you” won’t leave “US” alone.

How would two men or two women getting married effect my marriage? The same way people getting married purely for benefits or for status or “open” marriages do – it “cheapens” it. A marriage isn’t subjective to you and your spouse, it is OBJECTIVE, a standard defined outside ourselves that you have to meet, to work toward.

Hell, why does my opinion matter to you at all? Because “you” WANT my consent, my approval, my support, my money. And I don’t want to give it. If it was just about a “marriage” in a spiritual sense, gays could go under a tree, exchange vows, toss rice, slip on rings, and call it a marriage. Why is MY or society’s opinion on that so coveted by gays? To make themselves FEEL normal? For benefits? They so desire our acceptance because they can’t accept themselves?

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 5:40 PM

still not understanding why people go on this show or watch it

joey24007 on March 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM

What you had done to you, how you’re probably still facing discrimination living in a homophobic of a place such as Dallas: I honestly can’t even begin to imagine.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Excuse me? I’m just going to interpret this as jealousy over our clearly superior weather right now.

Esthier on March 6, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual are in the closet. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I mean, there’s certainly those type of people who are closeted (the few televangelists come to mind), but I think the vast majority of people that are anti-homosexual are just anti-homosexual.

I mean, look at people who are xenophobic or racist. I don’t think any of them fear that they will become foreigners or another racial category. Those people just have problems with other people who are different than them. Same, I think with anti-gay people.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Excuse me? I’m just going to interpret this as jealousy over our clearly superior weather right now.

Esthier on March 6, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I really, truly can’t argue against that Esthier. Hehehe.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:55 PM

And here is some legal info for you to ponder:

“Outside of the fact that the slippery slope is called a logical fallacy for a reason, these stances ignore the very basics of both contract and Constitutional law.

Again, nice try, but no dice. “Slippery slope” to you is “legal precedent” to another. Lawyers do it ALL THE TIME. “Slippery slope” is a derogatory term used to hand wave concerns over changes in law, which often happen just as feared. The decriminalization of homosexual conduct was said to encourage same sex marriage. “No, no, that would never happen”, we were told years ago in law school by gay advocates. And here we are.

Since it is a contract, marriage requires something very important: consent from both parties. A dog cannot consent to a contract under any circumstances, so a person cannot marry a dog.

Consent is a legal term, open to “re-definition”, apparently just like marriage. My point is, if a girl can consent to an abortion, without parental consent or notice, as Florida either allows or wants to permit, then why not consent to the act of sex itself, that lead to the need for the abortion? If Florida OKS it, why not Pennsylvania, or New York? Sliipery slope, or legal argument/precedent.

Also, I never said you could MARRY a dog,; bestiality is not marriage, it’s a sex act with a animal. Unhealthy? Yes. But so is sodomy. But what if the dog is your property, and you aren’t “abusing” it, then how is it “criminal”? So, that depends on the definition of “abuse”, no? And that depends on the judge reviewing the case.

Currently, it is most likely that laws prohibiting gay marriage will be reviewed under rational basis scrutiny. If that is the case, a court would need to determine that preventing gay marriage is arbitrary, or in other words that there is no rational basis it provides and is only prohibited because gay people give some straight people the heebie jeebies. But clearly laws prohibiting incest and bigamy do have a rational basis. Incest has a unique problem because can lead to children with all sorts of nasty birth defects, but bigamy and incest share a big problem as well: oftentimes engaging in those act lead to child victims. Protecting children from the terrible situations that bigamy and incest often lead to is clearly a rational basis that is not arbitrary.

Again, incest between the same sex doesn’t lead to conception.

Oh and this is a belly-laugher:

but bigamy and incest share a big problem as well: oftentimes engaging in those act lead to child victims. Protecting children from the terrible situations that bigamy and incest often lead to is clearly a rational basis that is not arbitrary.

Here, let me copy that with a term changed:

but homosexuality shares a big problem as well: oftentimes engaging in that act leads to child victims. Protecting children from the terrible situations that homosexuality often leads to is clearly a rational basis that is not arbitrary.”

See Jerry Sandusky as a recent “fer instance”.

Really, two brothers humping each other could involve child abuse? So, why not two gays doing so?

And what does bigamy have to do with child abuse? Aside from having two families you might not provide for? Hell, these days most kids have two mommies or daddies via same sex relationships or broken homes.

If your argument stretches logic any further, you’ll rip it’s hymen.

You are arguing from a “moral” standpoint, and I sympathize. But the left has worked long and hard to erase “moral” justifications from law; we sued to debate it all the time. I’m just using their new rules against them, each time they try to put up a barricade to stop the flood they started.

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 5:58 PM

I really, truly can’t argue against that Esthier. Hehehe.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:55 PM

I knew it! :)

I actually went up there recently for business and was teased when they all saw the layers I was wearing, but we’ve had weather lately that makes me hope AGW is true just so that I can do my part in speeding it along.

Esthier on March 6, 2012 at 5:59 PM

See above where you get beaten over the head. Repeatedly. Santorum is not around to vote for anymore, so who ya got?

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Again, swing and a miss – I don’t support Santorum. In fact, all the Repub choices suck. But they all beat Barry by a country mile, no contest.

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 6:01 PM

No:

Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. — APA (Pyschological)

In the past, defining homosexuality as an illness buttressed society’s moral opprobrium of same-sex relationships (2). In the current social climate, claiming homosexuality is a mental disorder stems from efforts to discredit the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. — APA (Psychiatric)

The ACA opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation.

… and the general position of the American Medical Association.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM

See above where you get beaten over the head. Repeatedly. Santorum is not around to vote for anymore, so who ya got?

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Oh, and just for laughs, you do know Obama opposes “gay marriage”, right?

That’s it, I’m out. Too much fun for me today.

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM

K, the spam filter is catching the links. I’ve exactly copied and pasted, so highlighting and doing a Google Search will bring up the relevant page.

APA – “Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations … Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality.”

APA (Psychiatric) – In the past, defining homosexuality as an illness buttressed society’s moral opprobrium of same-sex relationships (2). In the current social climate, claiming homosexuality is a mental disorder stems from efforts to discredit the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality.

The ACA “opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation.”

… and the big long AMA page. Here.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 6:21 PM

The whole drive mechanism is based on establishing legal precedent.

If two consenting gay adults can get married and they are legally married, what is the rational for refusing consenting adults to marry in an incestuous relationship?
Civil unions that have the same legal protections as marriage leaves the barrier in tact.
I think this is why the demand is marriage and nothing short of marriage. The barrier prevents a free for all.

Mimzey on March 6, 2012 at 6:21 PM

What’s wrong? No links showing that these associations deem the desire to have sex with more than one person as deviant?

blink on March 6, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Nope! It showed up at 6:10PM.

As I said, “(homosexuality) is a normal expression of human sexuality (as defined by the APA, APA, AMA, ACA, etc. medical community) …”

Which the APA and APA both literally almost word-for-word state on their webpages, while the ACA and AMA concur in longer statements of positions.

Honestly. I don’t even know why you tried to take on the medical community.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Michele Bachmann was the only real conservative in the GOP primary but she was tossed aside for Romney, conservatives are going to get what they deserve and they are not going to like it.

Axion on March 6, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I have the up most respect for YOU

apocalypse on March 6, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Yup. Thanks for bringing that up? (Were you trying to be helpful?) It’s no secret that the medical community turned face as knowledge of the human mind and our psychology advanced. What we know today verses a few decades ago, verses even before that is impressive.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:18 PM

That wasn’t an advancement, it was a deliberate and well documented corruption.

Count to 10 on March 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM

You’re claiming that the medical community has deemed polygamy as deviant sex because of some supposed negative social impact or something.

Are you now backing away from this claim, or do you think that I’ll stop asking you to support your claim if you simply act stupid?

blink on March 6, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Naw, you just are just going Bill Clinton on me ’cause you can’t challenge me on any of which I’ve said.

… and when you go back and quote me …

Yup. Simple answer: Because homosexuality is not deviant sex, is a normal expression of human sexuality (as defined by the APA, APA, AMA, ACA, etc. medical community) and does not have the negative social impacts of polygamy

You conveniently forget the word ‘and’, which is a conjunction used to present non-contrasting items or ideas. As in the ‘medical community declares homosexuality to be a normal expression of human sexuality’ is one idea and ‘polygamy, rape and incestual relationships have negative social impacts’ is another separate and non-contrasting idea.

So, President blick, have any thoughts on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is?

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Last week, Cameron told Morgan he thinks homosexuality is “unnatural and … detrimental and … ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” Cameron’s remarks shocked not only Morgan, but also the online universe: The exchange trended on Twitter for about 36 hours.

Have we really reached the point where such a mundane observation is shocking?

What we really have is a culture where expressing anything less than complete acceptance and approval of homosexuality is controversial. Most people who instinctively feel that “there’s something wrong with that” know perfectly well that saying it out loud can get you in trouble.

Unnatural? Obviously. Unhealthy? Unhealthy for who? For a society, homosexuality is obviously unhealthy, since the propagation of society requires reproduction, which simply does not occur with homosexual activity. For an individual, there are certain health risks that apply to homosexuals and not to normal people.

But here’s the big one: Is it abnormal? Absolutely, in the sense of being comparatively rare and the opposite of normal human sexuality.

But the real battleground now is whether it is abnormal in the psychological sense. Recently, there was no question, since it was officially considered a form of mental illness. There has of course been a huge push to redefine it as “normal” healthy behavior. But is there any real evidence that the former consideration was wrong?

There is at this point in time a very facile but shallow belief on the part of many that homosexuality is now proven to be inborn, and perfectly normal. This belief is not really borne out by the evidence.

And of course there remains the fact that homosexuality is sinful from a Christian standpoint, and will remain that way. While you can always find nominal Christians who will excuse any behavior at all, there is simply no denying that anyone who takes the Bible seriously as definitive of Christian belief will inevitably have to face the fact that it unambiguously and repeatedly identifies homosexuality as a sin, and even an abomination.

tom on March 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Will you stand with pedophiles and use the same arguments? You should because it’s just a lifestyle choice. And if men want to marry children who are we to stop them. So what if it’s just another way of further damaging the sanctity of marriage./SARCASM

shick on March 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

This is one of the dumbest arguments out there. A marriage would be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. No pedophiles, no polygamy. One adult and one other adult. Don’t act like this is a gateway to people marrying cows.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Really? You say a marriage should only be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. If the only important factor is a) consent and b) adult, then there’s no reason to presume that marriage shouldn’t include multiple consenting adults.

In fact, if you’re going to draw any kind of moral lines around marriage, the only one that makes any sense is that it should be between a man and a woman. If you throw away that line, there’s no rational reason to draw another one around the number two. Now you’re being unfair to bisexuals.

The whole same-sex argument is about it being unfair to draw lines between people who want to be married. Throw out one line, and all the others will follow.

tom on March 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Yup. Simple answer: Because homosexuality is not deviant sex, is a normal expression of human sexuality (as defined by the APA, APA, AMA, ACA, etc. medical community) and does not have the negative social impacts of polygamy, rape or incestual relationships.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Simple, but wrong in your very first point. Homosexuality is deviant sex. Launching a campaign to encourage the dictionary writers to change the definition of homosexuality to normal does not make it normal.

At its most basic, you’re pushing for people to make a value judgement that homosexuality is perfectly okay, then trumpeting that value judgement as proof when in fact it will never be more than an opinion.

Furthermore, it does have negative social impacts, as testified by multiple homosexuals over the years, and their attempts to mitigate the shame they feel by pushing to rename their condition as “being gay,” sponsoring “gay pride” events, and pushing for special laws to ensure they are never discriminated against. Even the current push for same-sex marriage is all about “normalizing” their essentially deviant behavior.

Then, we have the push to redefine anyone who does not approve of homosexuality as a “homophobe.”

The reason we keep having the conversation about same-sex marriage is because homosexuals do not feel normal, and want to be able to claim that they are normal in every way.

Which is also why same-sex marriage in all 50 states would not fix anything. The government can declare homosexuality to be normal and healthy, but that would not in itself make homosexuality normal and healthy.

tom on March 6, 2012 at 8:14 PM

No, just a attorney taught this by a very left leaning family law professor several years ago. Cause it’s the actual legal truth, it’s what to expect. This lesson left a lot of libs in class speechless.

I notice you didn’t address the actual point I made, just arm-flailed.

Saltyron on March 6, 2012 at 4:53 PM

You are kidding, right? You, as an attorney, are trying to tell me that it would be impossible to write a law that would distinguish same sex marriage from incestuous same sex marriage? I will do it right now “You can get married to a person of the same sex as long as you are not blood-related.” Hey look, I did it! It took a whole 5 seconds. I hope you didn’t pay much for that law school.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 4:56 PM

No one is arguing that you can’t write a law distinguishing same-sex marriage from incestuous same-sex marriage, except you. It’s also trivially easy to write a law that marriage is exclusively between husband and wife.

The attempt to force same-sex marriage is an attempt to throw out laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman as arbitrary. And the point is that the distinction between incestuous and non-incestuous marriage is just as arbitrary.

And yet you argue that throwing out one arbitrary distinction could never lead to throwing out another arbitrary distinction.

Why couldn’t it?

tom on March 6, 2012 at 8:31 PM

And yet you argue that throwing out one arbitrary distinction could never lead to throwing out another arbitrary distinction.

Why couldn’t it?

tom on March 6, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Isn’t that suggesting this debate isn’t important from either side?
We already know that Homosexuals get Civil Unions. The difference is about the title. As long as churches, mosques, and synagogues have the rights respected, who cares? Likewise the people likening it to civil rights, out protesting on behalf of gay marriage are carrying on a cultural war over linguistics.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 6, 2012 at 8:43 PM

No, I just sometime’s struggle with intolerant people when I’m not in a nice mood. Because when dealing with intolerant people, such as yourself, it’s always nice to reflect upon how you’re the cause of the destruction of the lives of a fair number of my friends and acquaintances.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Oddly enough, the most intolerant folks I’ve ever encountered are sitting – figuratively – in *your* chair, being utterly and virulently intolerant of anyone that dares disagree with them.

Odd that, eh?

Midas on March 6, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Gosh Jebadiah, everyone knows that the earth is only 6000 years old, that people used to live to be 900 years old, that god gives you hemorrhoids if it’s pissed off at you, and that gay people can’t get into heaven.

Bandit13 on March 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM

This is one of the dumbest arguments out there. A marriage would be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. No pedophiles, no polygamy. One adult and one other adult. Don’t act like this is a gateway to people marrying cows.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:28 PM

So you’re ok with incest, but not polygamy. Got it.

But of course you realize that the ones who want to take it beyond that to include pedophilia will lobby to have the legal age of ‘adult’ altered downwards…

… and others will use the stepping stones to expand it beyond ‘two’ consenting adults to ‘two or more’…

You can’t argue that this won’t be the case, given the clear recent history of the push to legalize gay marriage – at least not and be remotely intellectually honest about your argument.

Midas on March 6, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I’m just curious if anyone can provide a link to the absolute, scientific or medical study that has proven beyond all doubt that homosexuals are a different biological entity that is deserving of special legislation?

I’ve heard all the “because I am”, or the “did you know when you were heterosexual?” I’d just like to see the proof of why homosexuals should be able to legally redefine marriage as anything other than 1 man, 1 woman.

If marriage IS redefined as anything other than 1 man, 1 woman, then eventually it can be defined as ANYTHING that a court or legislature deems it to be. Forget religion or nature, I’m talking about a legal system where no “victim” is ever satisfied with an outcome.

It will take another 25 or 30 years, but if marriage has been redefined legally, there will be calls to redefine “consenting” and “adult.” At that point, like it or not, marriage can then be any combination of adults, children or animals. And if you seriously doubt that these people don’t already live among us, you have never seen the signs at any big, leftist rally or protest.

We’re not scared of a slippery slope because we’ve already slipped off the mountain. Thankfully I’m closer to the grave than the cradle. I’m not sure I want to see what this country looks like in another 30 years.

TugboatPhil on March 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Michele Bachmann is one of the few people in Congress I actually trust and admire.

Metro on March 6, 2012 at 10:01 PM

You know what, I’m sorry that I was born 20-30 years after you. I’m sorry that I live in Wisconsin, instead of Texas. I’m am truly sorry that you had to go through all of the persecution that I didn’t have to, because of all of the blood, sweat and tears the previous generation put in into creating a better world for me.

But you are just so spiteful, so abrasively uncomfortable with gays and lesbians that I literally don’t even know how to respond to you. What you had done to you, how you’re probably still facing discrimination living in a homophobic of a place such as Dallas: I honestly can’t even begin to imagine.

ZachV on March 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Oh, the endless amusement value.

For some reason, you think that pointing out the rank stupidity of sexually harassing your coworkers and then claiming the company is “homophobic” when you are fired is being “spiteful”.

Apparently you have some sort of thought process that leads you to the belief that mocking someone who claims Viagra ads make them have bareback sex and take meth is “abrasively uncomfortable”.

Perhaps best of all, you believe that going on national TV and screaming for the death of all Republicans is somehow normal, intelligent behavior.

And then branding everyone in Dallas, a place where you likely have never been, “homophobic” without even knowing them, and then claiming they make children kill themselves….wow.

Screw that. It’s wrong to sexually harass people. It’s irresponsible and stupid to blame your promiscuity and drug use on advertising. It’s downright hateful to wish someone dead because of their political affiliation, and saying that people are homophobic and want children to die just because of where they live.

But you can’t acknowledge or admit that because you aren’t capable of holding gays and lesbians accountable for their behavior. You just blame everyone else.

I’m sorry you were so retarded emotionally and intellectually that you think it’s acceptable to do any of these things because you’re gay. And frankly, all the previous generation did was produce a generation of spoiled-brat children like you with zero morals, value, or character and a whiny, screaming insistence that you can do whatever you want because you’re gay.

You exemplify the gay and lesbian community’s demand that it be judged by its sexual orientation instead of by the content of their character.

Which is necessary in your case, because you have no character.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2012 at 10:16 PM

One of the most effective interviews I heard was a radio host in Portland who invited some liberals onto his show and asked them questions.

He didn’t even get confrontational, he was very respectful. But he had done his homework. He just asked them the kind of questions that liberal “news media” people ask conservatives, from the other side.

The results were hilarious. They tied themselves in knots.

The problem with them is they want to filibuster and get into yelling contests. The hosts need to keep control and not let them do that.

Gingrich is wonderful in his interviews. The one with David Gregory was masterful.

I would like to see him downticket somewhere doing interviews. The problem with him is that he has to be the one in the spotlight. He might be a good adviser but the top spot has to go to someone that can moderate his goofiness.

schmuck281 on March 6, 2012 at 11:38 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual anti-incest are attracted to their siblings. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women siblings getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual anti-polygamy are wannabe polygamists. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women a man and multiple women getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual anti-pedophile are secretly pedophiles. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women a child and a grown man getting married effect your marriage?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I’m convinced that people who are strongly anti-homosexual anti-black are in the closet secretly black. How many times have we seen it play out in the past? I dont spend my time worrying about things that I hate, dont like, or dont participate in. Those that do confuse me. How would two men or two women getting married someone’s skin color effect your marriage your own skin color?

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM

CanofSand on March 7, 2012 at 1:01 AM

“A dog cannot consent to a contract under any circumstances, so a
person cannot marry a dog.”

Our country is only one activist judge away from making it so.

elm on March 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Michele Bachmann is one of the few people in Congress I actually trust and admire.

Metro on March 6, 2012 at 10:01 PM

God bless you for recognizing a sincere person

apocalypse on March 7, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3