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

“War on Women…!”

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM

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.

Whoa. SNL hasn’t been cancelled? Wow, learn something new everyday.

Red Cloud on March 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Last week, Cameron told Morgan he thinks homosexuality is “unnatural and … detrimental and … ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

Geez Kirk, melodrama much?

thirtyandseven on March 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Piers has never been the same since Amorosa accused him of being ghey on Celebrity Apprentice a few years ago.

JPeterman on March 6, 2012 at 12:48 PM

When are we going to discuss Incestuous Marriage?

On another note… there is no such thing as “a homosexual”. There are homosexual acts, but that’s different than being a homosexual.

mankai on March 6, 2012 at 12:48 PM

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…

Why would it shock anyone that an evangelical Christian would believe those things? More faux outrage — it’s how the libs roll.

KS Rex on March 6, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Kirk Cameron is an evangelical Christian and he’s not running for any office. I don’t know why his comments should shock anyone, unless they are surprised that someone had the lack of political correctness to say them. Disagree with them sure, but the fact that Christians think homosexuality is a sin is not exactly new information.

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 12:48 PM

How come no republicans other than Palin points out that Obama too is against gay marriage.

the_nile on March 6, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Romney/Bachmann 2012

dmann on March 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Did she really have to push that Gardasil thing?

Archivarix on March 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Given No. 2, GOPers might be better served to just engage on social issues without shame.

How about ignoring the question and use the air time to discuss Fast and Furious? Or Volt? Or Solyndra? Crony capitalism? Or the administration’s stonewalling on requests for documents? The media wants the social issues fight. Why allow it to deflect?

a capella on March 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM

sandra fluke, democratic plant, wants people to “occupy her vagina”

http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/well-what-do-you-know-sandra-fluke-is-an-occutard-picture/

golembythehudson on March 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Still, Piers persisted, suggesting that Bachmann has been “judgmental” in the past, to which Bachmann took offense.

Funny in the context of this conversation: “Being judgmental” is in the top three in the list of Secular Sins.

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Meanwhile, $16 trillion in debt, $5 gallon gasoline and double digit real unemployment. But the Left has to focus on contraceptives and gay marriage.

rbj on March 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Did she really have to push that Gardasil thing?

Archivarix on March 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM

That was pure propaganda, what she said was no worse than Romneycare, or a host of other gaffes by other politicians.

The MSM simply didn’t want a woman to run against 0bama, they spewed out the usual propaganda and dirty tricks, and supposed conservatives lapped it up.

Rebar on March 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Bachmann to Morgan: “I think I’ve had enough of this conversation.”

Thems are walking off the set words.

The Nerve on March 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM

While I don’t agree entirely with Bachmann on the issue, Morgan acted like a complete and utter douchebag. What a shameless hack.

I do wish she’d have smacked him down a bit more, though. Just repeating the talking points over and over always makes me doubt her a bit. I’d prefer she toss him around a couple of times, because I know she can when she gets going. That said, she’s got astonishing patience.

MadisonConservative on March 6, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Meanwhile, $16 trillion in debt, $5 gallon gasoline and double digit real unemployment. But the Left has to focus on contraceptives and gay marriage.

rbj on March 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Misdirection. They are great at it. It would be fun to see every candidate preface any answer to a social issues question with something like “Well, considering that gas prices are now pushing $5.00 a gallon and unemployment is so high….etc.” and then proceed to answer the question.

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Hadn’t heard about the Kirk Cameron’s interviewentire CNN lineup.

Voter from WA State on March 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

FIFY

CycloneCDB on March 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Piers Morgan about being judgemental? Pot, kettle, black.

EnglishRogue on March 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM

If you’re a Christian, there is no “debate” about homosexual marriage. Jesus Christ was very clear:

Matthew 10:6-8 -

[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

To “debate,” otherwise, is to renounce His specific teaching.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Regarding Kirk Cameron: what guy wouldn’t be opposed to homosexuality if he had to spend years looking at Alan Thicke?

radjah shelduck on March 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

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?

Which is why the left can never be induced to stop talking about these issues by silence on them from conservatives. The left will only stop pushing if conservatives visibly surrender on these issues, and agree to no longer hold their own beliefs or expect to be allowed to live and use their money and property as they see fit, whenever those quantities intersect with the freighted issues.

This truth has been obvious for a very long time. Too many on the right, however, buy into the false premise.

J.E. Dyer on March 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

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?

Well, Tina, because they would say “because I believe in equality” and that would be the end of the conversation.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

“War on Women…!”

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I love women. Women make life worth living. Just imagine a world without them. Oh, that’s right, never mind.

Bmore on March 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

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?

How about “Do you support incestuous marriage? Why or Why not?”

And you can scoff at the polygamy question, but it is legitimate. If marriage is simply a legal transaction, then multiple people can engage in that activity if they do so willingly.

mankai on March 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Well, Tina, because they would say “because I believe in equality” and that would be the end of the conversation.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

And where does “equality” begin and end? Only with marriage?
I bet Piers Morgan drives a much nicer car than I do, so I demand that he buy me an equivalent car. He is probably one of those horrible 1%ers I keep hearing about.

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Liberals concentrate on the issue they think they can win, because the past pattern has proven a winner. If only, all of the Conservatives would turn the tables on these Pundits by asking the same question in reverse we might begin to see that pattern broken.

One way to win, is to stay focused and don’t let these questions stump you, way to go Bachman! Now, if only every other Conservative would match this stance and ask the questions in reverse, or drive the topic to the real issues of the day: gas prices, oppressive tyrannical administration, and solyndra, etc.

uhangtight on March 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM

And where does “equality” begin and end? Only with marriage?
I bet Piers Morgan drives a much nicer car than I do, so I demand that he buy me an equivalent car. He is probably one of those horrible 1%ers I keep hearing about.

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I should have clarified with “equal rights” not equal everything.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I watched the exchanges. Bachmann was up front that she opposes gay marriage. She kept repeating that and adding that she does not think that makes her a bigot.

What she refused to say a single word on was whether or not Homosexuality is unnatural and a perversion that harms society.

She said that she wants to talk about Terrorism.

jimw on March 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Did she really have to push that Gardasil thing?

Archivarix on March 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM

That was pure propaganda, what she said was no worse than Romneycare, or a host of other gaffes by other politicians.

The MSM simply didn’t want a woman to run against 0bama, they spewed out the usual propaganda and dirty tricks, and supposed conservatives lapped it up.

Rebar on March 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM

What MSM propaganda, bro? I was watching the debate with my own pair of eyes. There are bad ideas (RomneyCare), there are mistakes (Cain’s bimbo eruption), there are gaffes (Perry’s brain fart), and there is sheer, genuine, unadulterated batsh|t-level craziness. That’s what Bachmann demonstrated by bringing up the Gardasil anecdote, killing two best candidates in one shot. Now, she will be lucky to hold onto her district.

Archivarix on March 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Voter from WA State on March 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I don’t think he cares what people think of him either, just what God thinks and that is so refreshing.

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

To “debate,” otherwise, is to renounce His specific teaching.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Very good point. In the future conservatives should turn it around and say, “So do you hate Jesus?”

shick on March 6, 2012 at 1:05 PM

This should be turned around. Instead of taking the, “Why do you hate homosexuals?” line, it should be turned around on them by asking, “If you disagree with what Christ said in the Bible, why do you hate him and his followers who are convicted that this lifestyle is bad for them in multiple ways? Why are you intolerant?

shick on March 6, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I can think of a faster c-change in public opinion Piers and it has to do with your boy, Obama.

earlgrey133 on March 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Homosexuals represent 2% of the population but something like 40-50% of our political dialogue. People need a sense of proportion.

Crusty on March 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Kirk Cameron is spot on. The problem we have is that right and wrong is now just grey and greyer.

kirkill on March 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Why would it shock anyone that an evangelical Christian would believe those things? More faux outrage — it’s how the libs roll.

KS Rex on March 6, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I agree with that. Both the Cameron interview, and here with Bachmann, it was obvious baiting by Morgan, who didn’t simply ask a question, as much as he was pushing for making them look bad and fanning the flames (no pun intended).

As anyone knows, I support gay marriage. And we need some healthy debate and factual evidence over all the hype, flame wars, one-sided opinions where no one listens, but everyone shouts that are usually expressed in these debates.

We need to get away from the “us versus them” mentality. We’re all humans, and like it or not, we’re stuck with each other.

JetBoy on March 6, 2012 at 1:07 PM

One of these days…I want to see one of our women…just haul off and punch a puss Morgan type! (Jerry Springer style!)

KOOLAID2 on March 6, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Piers Morgan is a worm.

Why would anyone go to, or watch, his show?

Schadenfreude on March 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

How about ignoring the question and use the air time to discuss Fast and Furious? Or Volt? Or Solyndra? Crony capitalism? Or the administration’s stonewalling on requests for documents? The media wants the social issues fight. Why allow it to deflect?

a capella on March 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Don’t you know those were George Bush’s fault? Just wait….it will be blame Bush all over again.

nazo311 on March 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I disagree Tina. I think its perfectly acceptable to press those on who want to limit others rights on WHY they want to limit others rights.

To reverse it wouldnt make sense. A GOPer couldnt turn that debate around and win the argument. Q: “Why should gays be able to marry?” A: “Because they have the same rights as everyone else”

Personally, I dont agree with that lifestyle choice but I dont understand why people are so wrapped up in it. If you dont like gay marriage then dont marry a gay person but dont tell me that its going to damage the sancity of Marriage when I personally know people whove gotten married just for the military benefits, for citizenship or whove cheated on their husbands/wives on their wedding nights.

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Rebar on March 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I’m a woman and would have no problem voting for another ‘sister’-my problems with MB were her baseless, below-the-belt attacks on Perry. That told me all I needed to know about her character-mainly that that she’s deficient in it.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 6, 2012 at 1:09 PM

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.

Bad form? I say it is bad form to let the interviewer frame the debate in a false narrative. Your prescription is right on the mark, Tina. All it takes is a little composure and a little preparation to recognize the false premises and ulterior motivations that underlie these attempts by interviewers to frame the issues. Anyone who wants to run for high office had better have the wit and the discipline to do it.

It is one of the few things about Newt I really admire. He has a fundamental understanding of the issues and his positions, and he spots the frame up immediately. Then he exposes the scam, and often rips the tool attempting to perpetrate it.

novaculus on March 6, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Homosexuals represent 2% of the population but something like 40-50% of our political dialogue. People need a sense of proportion.

Crusty on March 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM

If this is true (it’s not…but let’s say it is) then why on earth are so many so afraid of gays? 2% of the population is a threat to the other 98%? And destroy Christianity? and the military?

Us gays must have super-human powers I don’t know about…

JetBoy on March 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Don’t you know those were George Bush’s fault? Just wait….it will be blame Bush all over again.

nazo311 on March 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Like the way you hypocrites are blaming Clinton for a housing crisis that happened 6 years into Bush’s presidential run. Looks like Obama still has 2 more years to blame everything on Bush.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Like the way you hypocrites are blaming Clinton for a housing crisis that happened 6 years into Bush’s presidential run

The Community Reinvestment Act passed under Clinton. Bush and the Republicans tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but was told by Barney Fwank and the republicans that there was no problem. If the lending policies were not relaxed under Clinton, we may not have hada housing crisis.

NoFanofLibs on March 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM

JetBoy on March 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I love ya, Man!
I don’t want to know about anyone’s sex life.
Anyone’s.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 6, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Geez Kirk, melodrama much?

thirtyandseven on March 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Not any more melodramatic than the gay activists equating their “struggles” to the civil rights movement… something that has not endeared them to the black community very much.

mark81150 on March 6, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Sorry Kirk, too busy generating tax revenues for Unkle Sugar to be all up on destroyin’ western KKKivilization

Jeddite on March 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

JetBoy on March 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Hey Jet,

I think the gay marriage debate is somewhat of a false trail for Christians to follow because it can overshadow the true problem which is that if a gay person(or any person) is unsaved and does not know Christ then that is a far bigger issue than them being gay. However, I think a lot of us are rightly afraid that a time is coming where saying homosexuality is a sin could land us in jail for hate speech or get us sued, etc. And people can say that that is paranoia, but given the knee-jerk reaction that I see from some where saying you don’t approve of gay marriage is equivalent to stoning or causing teens to commit suicide, etc, it’s a valid concern.

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

This truth has been obvious for a very long time. Too many on the right, however, buy into the false premise.

J.E. Dyer on March 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

The social issues are driven by opinion to a large extent and as such, can be argued ad infinitum with no conclusion. Obviously, First Amendment rights don’t fall into this category, but many do. OTOH, Obama’s track record is composed of facts and data and begs for a conclusion. IMO, that’s where our effort should be concentrated.

a capella on March 6, 2012 at 1:20 PM

NoFanofLibs on March 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM

So, you are saying that some of the things that happened during Obama’s presidency that people have claimed are Bush’s fault, may have actually been Bush’s fault? Because it seems like you want to blame Clinton for things and then also say that anything that happens during Obama’a time in office is Obama’s fault. You can’t have it both ways.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Barack Hussein Obama and Piers Morgan spar about gay marriage

Headlines you will never see, Part 6,374.

MNHawk on March 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

and there is sheer, genuine, unadulterated batsh|t-level craziness.

Archivarix on March 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM

That propaganda right there, “bro”.

Rebar on March 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Personally, I dont agree with that lifestyle choice but I dont understand why people are so wrapped up in it. If you dont like gay marriage then dont marry a gay person but dont tell me that its going to damage the sancity of Marriage when I personally know people whove gotten married just for the military benefits, for citizenship or whove cheated on their husbands/wives on their wedding nights.

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 1:08 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

That’s what Bachmann demonstrated by bringing up the Gardasil anecdote, killing two best candidates in one shot. Now, she will be lucky to hold onto her district.

Archivarix on March 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM

She wasn’t shy in all of the debates being Romney’s attack dog. She accused Gov. Perry and lied about him enough. She’s stated often enough what a Christian she is, so I don’t see what the problem was. Quite a difference between her and Cameron.

You are right tho, she’s worried about her seat. She won’t have Sarah Palin endorsing her and fund raising for her like the last time.

I researched MB a long time ago, and watched her performances in the debates and wouldn’t vote for her under any circumstance.

She made a mess of the Tea Party Caucus she set up in the House and now kissing up to Mark Levin and set up another Tea Party Caucus for Levin, LOL She told Mark a few weeks ago, she had 3 members.

bluefox on March 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM

This is leading to the criminalization of speech and thought crime.

Canada and several other “western” nations already allow for the punishment of speech they don’t like.

Christopher Hitchens warned about this while he was alive.

tetriskid on March 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM

However, I think a lot of us are rightly afraid that a time is coming where saying homosexuality is a sin could land us in jail for hate speech or get us sued, etc.

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

That is exactly what is happening in England and Canada right now. And exactly what the progressive homosexual agenda wants here.

Rebar on March 6, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Newsflash: Kirk Cameron accused of practicing Christianity, secular world reacts with horror

Hopefully he will be apprehended soon and thrown in jail with the rest of those illegal non-progressive Christians.

SirGawain on March 6, 2012 at 1:24 PM

To reverse it wouldnt make sense. A GOPer couldnt turn that debate around and win the argument. Q: “Why should gays be able to marry?” A: “Because they have the same rights as everyone else”

Personally, I dont agree with that lifestyle choice but I dont understand why people are so wrapped up in it. If you dont like gay marriage then dont marry a gay person but dont tell me that its going to damage the sancity of Marriage when I personally know people whove gotten married just for the military benefits, for citizenship or whove cheated on their husbands/wives on their wedding nights.

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

The question should be posed “How does a homosexual union benefit society? Why should their be any legal recognition?”

monalisa on March 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

JetBoy on March 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Do you support incestuous marriage and polygamy?

mankai on March 6, 2012 at 1:27 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

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Herald of Woe on March 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

So lesbians or OK by the book?

the_nile on March 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

She should have been the nominee

conservativeBC on March 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

If you’re a Christian, there is no “debate” about homosexual marriage. Jesus Christ was very clear:

Matthew 10:6-8 -

[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

To “debate,” otherwise, is to renounce His specific teaching.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Moreover, Christ was a Jew, who said:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

That law included, at Lev. 20,13:

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So what is the Jewish position on this?

Herald of Woe on March 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Looks like Michelle got some rest after all the campaigning and is back to her more stable self. Too bad ruuning for president takes you so out of your comfort zone especially when you don’t have the media covering for you that you show a side of yourself that can turn off the electorate.

wizzdumb on March 6, 2012 at 1:30 PM

If this is true (it’s not…but let’s say it is) then why on earth are so many so afraid of gays? 2% of the population is a threat to the other 98%? And destroy Christianity? and the military?

JetBoy on March 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM

It IS true, so let’s just go ahead and say it is. It sure ain’t that BS 10% figure.

SirGawain on March 6, 2012 at 1:30 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

You probably had ancestors 100 years ago that said: “and if we allow women to vote, what’s next? Children voting? Farm animals voting?”

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Men having sex with men is unnatural? Sheesh! Everyone knows that’s how humans have successfully repopulated the planet for hundred of thousand of years. What planet is Cameron from, anyway? Earth? The next crazy thing he’ll claim is that women having sex with women is unnatural, that THEY can’t produce children. Honestly, these extremist right-wing nutjobs just don’t understand what sex is for. Not reproduction — pleasure! That’s what we Lefties are all about. All the time.

RobertMN on March 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I would make it a point to Piers that, compared to homosexuality, heterosexuality stands a better chance of resulting in new taxpayers that can fund liberal entitlement programs. That is, of course, if the future taxpayer survives 9 months in utero.

DaveDief on March 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM

If you dont like gay marriage then dont marry a gay person but dont tell me that its going to damage the sancity of Marriage when I personally know people whove gotten married just for the military benefits, for citizenship or whove cheated on their husbands/wives on their wedding nights.

Politricks on March 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Pointing out the exceptions and not the rule to validate a push for ‘marriage equality’ is disingenuous.

Also, whose rights are being limited? Any single willing man can marry any single willing woman and vice versa. What is being talking about is limiting or legalizing ‘new’ rights.

StompUDead on March 6, 2012 at 1:31 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

Are you a vegetarian? Because cows don’t consent to being killed and eaten either and people still do it. Just saying..

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You probably had ancestors 100 years ago that said: “and if we allow women to vote, what’s next? Children voting? Farm animals voting?”

No just titanic national debt, exploding welfare, black-hole entitlement programs, socialism, and “fairness” for all.

RobertMN on March 6, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Bravo Michele!

You are teaching other Conservatives how to take control of an interview.

This is going to dive the liberal media insane!

wren on March 6, 2012 at 1:34 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

Why not allow pedophiles? It’s just a lifestyle choice. Answer the question. Instead you just say, NO! Why isn’t it a gateway? You just say, NO!

Wonderful argumentation.

shick on March 6, 2012 at 1:35 PM

One moment Morgan tells Bachmann that ‘if that is your religious belief then that’s fine.’ The next moment he tries to trash Cameron for his “homophobic” attitude, because of his religious beliefs.

The liberals have lived with a double standard for so long, they just naturally employ it and don’t even realize they are doing it.

Mallard T. Drake on March 6, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Geez Kirk, melodrama much?

thirtyandseven on March 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Wtf does your sentence even mean? Wtf does melodrama have to do with anything? He was asked a question, he answered the question, and now you are harping like a little b!tch about his answer?

STFU troll. Methinks we have had enough of your trollolloling around here.

MooCow…out.

MooCowBang on March 6, 2012 at 1:40 PM

but the fact that Christians think homosexuality is a sin is not exactly new information.

BakerAllie on March 6, 2012 at 12:48 PM

As do all other major religions; and yet, it’s always the Christians that are the “bigots”.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2012 at 1:41 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

Why does it only have to be one? Business partnerships, assocations, mergers and unions most often have more than two individuals (shock, we even have 50 states in our union!). What gives you the right to set the allowed number at one-and-one? And what gives you the right to declare what an adult is?

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2012 at 1:41 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.

It may not specifically be a “gateway to marrying cows,” but it’s most certainly a gateway for polygamy and consensual adult incest, and here’s why:

Let’s say that instead of being an institution, marriage was, by law, defined as being a red wooden box.

When you refer to “a marriage,” everybody knows you’re talking about a red wooden box. Say “Hand me that marriage,” and people know to look around for a red wooden box.

But if somebody comes along and insists that a law be passed so that marriages could be green, and if that law ends up being passed, then you have no logical or legal basis on which to deny the next person who comes along and insists that marriages also be allowed to be made out of plastic, or the next person who insists that they be spherical.

The requirement of marriage that it be restricted to a man and a woman, is no more or less arbitrary than the requirement that it be restricted to people who aren’t immediate relations, or that it be restricted to ONLY one man and ONLY one woman.

So once you allow one requirement to be changed, you’re logically – and very likely legally – obligated to allow all of them to be changed.

So you can huff and snort all you want about “telling you that gay marriage will be a gateway to marrying cows,” but that’s a straw man, and a poorly-constructed one at that.

You have no more basis for denying marriage to polygamists and incestuous couples than you do denying it to gays. If you legalize gay marriage, eventually polygamy and consensual adult incest will almost certainly be included as legal configurations of marriage.

greggriffith on March 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The U.S. (and Europe) is burning and Piers, re-enacting Nero, is playing the fiddle.

She should have looked into the camera and talked straight to the America people watching. Talk specifically to the many currently watching that are out of work and point out that “Nero” would rather fiddle away the interview while ignoring the economic plight of the American people.

Basically, she should have gone “Newtonian” on Piers.

Carnac on March 6, 2012 at 1:43 PM

If you cant defend the position easily you should re think it.

There is a reason he keeps asking people about gay marriage.

Dash on March 6, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Why not allow pedophiles? It’s just a lifestyle choice. Answer the question. Instead you just say, NO! Why isn’t it a gateway? You just say, NO!

Wonderful argumentation.

shick on March 6, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I literally answered your question and you told me I didn’t answer your question. I said because it would be between one consenting adult and one other consenting adult, that is how the law would be written. It wouldn’t say “marry whomever you want based on lifestyle chouse.” No children, no farm animals, no multiple wives. An answer to your question, right there. How many more times should I write it? Your gateway argument is the same as saying that once women were allowed to vote, that children would be allowed to vote. It’s dumb and it’s wrong. If you allow adults to conceal and carry, next you will allow children to have guns. What is to stop them? It’s just a lifestyle choice!!

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:44 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

What about consenting father/daughter, brother/sister?

Who are you to tell three adult men they can’t marry two adult women? Or that all five can’t marry the other four? Equal protection!! Bigot!/

mankai on March 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Good answers Michele. The Democrats know that they can’t win on the economy, so they change the subject to social issues. Its amazing how stupid some people are and keep falling into this trap. Marriage is between one man and one woman, no other response is necessary, even President Obama knew this in 2008.

DDay on March 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Given No. 2, GOPers might be better served to just engage on social issues without shame.

If their views weren’t shameful, there’d be no shame in defending them. Santorum, Bachmann, and the other christianists can malign gays in front of church crowds, but they know they have to hide in public. Isn’t that what conservatives are always accusing “radical” liberals of–hiding their views in public?

Alpha_Male on March 6, 2012 at 1:48 PM

You probably had ancestors 100 years ago that said: “and if we allow women to vote, what’s next? Children voting? Farm animals voting?”

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:30 PM

The slippery slope argument is a valid argument if it can be warranted that progression leads to the conclusion.

I suggested that the same argument you apply to homosexual marriage also warrants pedophilia marriage.

Instead of countering by argument, you have just said no.

Perhaps 100 years from now your ancestors will say, “If we allow pedophiles to marry children, what’s next? Animals?”

shick on March 6, 2012 at 1:48 PM

What about consenting father/daughter, brother/sister?

Who are you to tell three adult men they can’t marry two adult women? Or that all five can’t marry the other four? Equal protection!! Bigot!/

mankai on March 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

You can’t possible really be this dumb. Do you think it would be that hard to write a law that said one consenting adult and one other “not blood related” consenting adult. Must be 18 to get married.

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:49 PM

If you legalize gay marriage, eventually polygamy and consensual adult incest will almost certainly be included as legal configurations of marriage.

greggriffith on March 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Then why aren’t children voting right now? “Voter” used to mean white male landowner. Now it means 18 year old citizen. The definition changed from a white wooden box to a multi-colored plastic box. And yet, still there are no children and farm animals voting. Surprise!

sob0728 on March 6, 2012 at 1:50 PM

People aren’t afraid of gays. It just gives militant gays a thrill to think so. It’s the destructive agenda that normal people are afraid of.
It’s never enough to just live their lifestyle. America, indeed the world, must embrace their lifestyle or be called homophobes (oh, the humanity!).

swinia sutki on March 6, 2012 at 1:50 PM

If two men doinking each other is soooooo natural, tell me how exactly would they reproduce? If Steve and Steve hook up, how are they to spread their genes? Test tubes and hire-a-whore to carry the child arguments don’t count. I want to know how they reproduce and continue to populate our planet.

search4truth on March 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Regarding Kirk Cameron: what guy wouldn’t be opposed to homosexuality if he had to spend years looking at Alan Thicke?

radjah shelduck on March 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Well his best friend on the show was nicknamed Boner. Maybe that had something to do with it.

HumpBot Salvation on March 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM

So lesbians or OK by the book?

the_nile on March 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

No.

Romans 1:26-27:

[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I wonder if Kirk is praying for Marcus.

KeninCT on March 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Why are the Democrats so obsessed about sex? With them it’s sex, sex, sex 24×7. They’re free to get intimate with whomever they like, but that’s not enough: Everyone MUST jump up and cheer.

My parents filed bankruptcy last month. My brother hasn’t had a job in 3 years. Obama’s tripled our deficit and increased our debt by over 50%. I’m paying a ridiculous amount for gas. I’ll make you a deal: MARRY WHATEVER YOU WANT LIBERALS, just stop destroying the economy!

theCork on March 6, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3