• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

AGENT J said:
3/5/2015

another day in my life, I woke up and I chose to have a heterosexual orientation . . . . man . . its tiring making that choice all the time
:laughat: Ben Carson
Click to expand...

OJ, just go to prison, man. Then let somebody else make that choice for ya. :lol:

I know, I'll get replies correcting me for calling you OJ...instead of AJ...it's one of those wild and crazy choices I have to make every time I reply or make a post directed at you. :cool:
 
Hicup said:
Why did you as a kid (Assuming you're from my generation) never admit to masturbating when asked? By the way, the choice for boys occurs much younger than it does for young girls, so by their teenage years, you effectively have no choice in the matter. But I would note that I am already seeing a trend in this conversation and I wonder if you or anyone else has picked up on it? Ah hell, I'll just tell you because I have to log off for a while. Notice we're no longer talking about homosexuality in terms of biology, but rather sociology. I find that intriguing, even if means nothing at all. ;)


Unlike many who try to deny homosexuality hasn't existed forever, I am quite different. I think that it might indeed have for any number of reasons, however back then our social evolution was way behind our biological evolution; not so today, and through the last 10,000 or so. I suspect it might have something to do with the mechanism in the brain for how we choose our friends. Again, I have no evidence of this, I'm really just hypothesizing because I like to discuss the matter without the mud slinging (Although I am quite capable of slinging mud if prompted) and as I stated, the brain works in mysterious ways, where we have only begun to understand the basics.


Tim-
Click to expand...

There are some findings, like the italian study, that suggest a biological advantage to limited homosexuality, and some researchers who hypothesize a social advantage in tribal settings. Both can be correct

What threw me off i guess is the socially *conscious choice* part, as if it's limited to an individual choice in 21st century. I mean no one that i recall admitted to jerking off, even though i'm sure everyone did, because it can be done in private and it's not a big deal anyway. Being gay in a homophobic environment where the whole school will find out? No one is so crazy as to make such a decision
 
AGENT J said:
OK I got one

What do Sara Palin, Ben Carson, Allen West and Michelle Bachmann have in common.



they are republicans that will NEVER be elected president :D

sigh . . I HONESTLY hope these loons fade into the back ground and the ones that are there stay there . . . nothing would make me happier than two or more candidates (party doesnt matter) running that actually have a chance with the american people and current political climate.
Click to expand...

SAY IT AIN'T SO! :shock:

You trying to spoil the rest of my voting life, OJ? I don't know if I can't take it anymore. :mrgreen:
 
Lursa said:
You made a claim. You are the one that has to support it.

Otherwise we dismiss it as conjecture or even BS.
Click to expand...

I made a claim and provided a link that explains with factual evidence why I make that claim. Again I am not going to spoon feed people research. If you do not like or do not read the material I give that helps form my opinions then that is your problem not mine. You and others seem to think everything should be wrapped up into a convenient little chart or graph or a paragraph or two you can read in 5 minutes. Not everyone is ADD. Some people actually read books. It is the totality of evidence that points to my conclusions. I provided links to one such source I use. Like it...don't like it...I do not care but you cannot claim I am not supporting my argument. You can claim you don't like the way I support my argument but that is your problem not mine. You obviously didn't dismiss my claim because you took the time to post about it.
 
Gina said:
Carson can't have it both ways and that's just what the LGBT community sees in a statement like this:


One cannot say they support rights in one breathe while then voicing support of the state to deny those rights in the next.
Click to expand...

Evidently you don't have a complete grasp of states rights. Any individual has the right to hold beliefs which are in disagreement with the state.
 
sawdust said:
Evidently you don't have a complete grasp of states rights. Any individual has the right to hold beliefs which are in disagreement with the state.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. That would be supporting LGBT rights and not supporting the states to limit that their rights.

As I explained, if he's for LGBT rights, it's hypocritical to support the right of the states to limit LGBT rights. If one truly is for LGBT rights.
 
Cardinal said:
If you support the rights of states to discriminate against LGBT's, then you must by extension not support the rights of LGBT's. If two parties are directly at odds with each other, it's disingenuous to claim you support both. But I put it less to dishonesty in Carson's case and more to the fact that he probably just isn't very good at thinking around such concepts.
Click to expand...

I support the right of states to govern themselves in every area that isn't in conflict with constitutionally mandated Federal responsibilities. I believe that the states have the right to outlaw the marriage of children or animals because there is no Federal mandate to regulate marriage. The lack of a Federal mandate gives them authority to regulate all marriage.

It's also fine with me if the states deregulate marriage all together. I really don't care who marries who as long as children and animals are protected. Marriage doesn't define relationships, they are defined by honesty, trust, commitment and love. All this other **** is just a side show.
 
sawdust said:
I support the right of states to govern themselves in every area that isn't in conflict with constitutionally mandated Federal responsibilities.
Click to expand...

So you support the "right" of states to infringe on the rights of their people? And you are against the federal government stepping in if such an incident occured? What if the roles were reversed and states were taking away gun rights and the federal government were trying to step in and enforce the 2nd amendment? What then?
 
Gina said:
Yes they do. That would be supporting LGBT rights and not supporting the states to limit that their rights.

As I explained, if he's for LGBT rights, it's hypocritical to support the right of the states to limit LGBT rights. If one truly is for LGBT rights.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I will never be able to help you understand how you could oppose gay marriage and also support the states right to support gay marriage or vice versa. You just said that individuals have the right to disagree with the state but think it's hypocritical when they do. I can't argue with that logic.
 
TeleKat said:
So you support the "right" of states to infringe on the rights of their people? And you are against the federal government stepping in if such an incident occured? What if the roles were reversed and states were taking away gun rights and the federal government were trying to step in and enforce the 2nd amendment? What then?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. I support the right of states to infringe the right of others to take my private property. I support the right of the state to infringe on the right of others to drive too slowly on interstate highways. I won't play what if games when it comes to violating the bill of rights. Words mean things.
 
Gina said:
Yes they do. That would be supporting LGBT rights and not supporting the states to limit that their rights.

As I explained, if he's for LGBT rights, it's hypocritical to support the right of the states to limit LGBT rights. If one truly is for LGBT rights.
Click to expand...


:shock: Is that even possible and expect to get away with it? That would be exhausting.

That's the old, "be all things to all people" sort of deal. If that's not enough to draw skepticism, don't know what is.
 
sawdust said:
Yes I do. I support the right of states to infringe the right of others to take my private property.
Click to expand...

Do you support the right of states to infringe on gun rights, parental rights, and religious rights?
 
Gina said:
Yes they do. That would be supporting LGBT rights and not supporting the states to limit that their rights.

As I explained, if he's for LGBT rights, it's hypocritical to support the right of the states to limit LGBT rights. If one truly is for LGBT rights.
Click to expand...

I've found that's the new way for social conservatives to stay in office during these times of increased social tolerance. If you're a federal elected official, "just let the states handle it" is an easy copout.
 
TeleKat said:
Do you support the right of states to infringe on gun rights, parental rights, and religious rights?
Click to expand...

If you actually read what I've written, with respect to rights, some rights are protected by the Federal government. The Bill of Rights outlines some of those protections. The founders left what is not protected Federally up to the states. Justice Louis Brandeis said that states are the laboratories of democracy. That which is not a Federal responsibility was left to the states. Your question by the way is silly.
 
sawdust said:
If you actually read what I've written, with respect to rights, some rights are protected by the Federal government. The Bill of Rights outlines some of those protections. The founders left what is not protected Federally up to the states. Justice Louis Brandeis said that states are the laboratories of democracy. That which is not a Federal responsibility was left to the states. Your question by the way is silly.
Click to expand...

So the federal government can only protect the first ten amendments of the constitution? What about the 14th, which mandates equal treatment under the law? And not only that but enforcement of said equality treatment is specifically delegated, in the amendment itself even, to the federal government.

So it's not silly, it's a legitimate question.
 
Crosscheck said:
True, it will not change one vote for or against him. It just shows how this guy is not ready for prime time. But he promises to bring some comedy to the doldrums of this electrion
Click to expand...

Right...because the best he can expect is a handful of votes in the primaries..

As educated a she may be, Sarah Palin has a better chance of being president, I do not know why you people have to go on advertising him....maybe it takes your mind off lyin Hillary
 
TeleKat said:
So the federal government can only protect the first ten amendments of the constitution? What about the 14th, which mandates equal treatment under the law? And not only that but enforcement of said equality treatment is specifically delegated, in the amendment itself even, to the federal government.

So it's not silly, it's a legitimate question.
Click to expand...

Rights are created by government. They are not created by you claiming they exist. As states grant the right to gay marriage, they exist in the states where the right was granted. The Federal government has created protections which go beyond the Bill of rights, you should know that.
 
sawdust said:
Rights are created by government. They are not created by you claiming they exist.
Click to expand...

Our rights were endowed to us by our creator. Rights are not gifts from government. The 9th amendment acknowledges this when it establishes that that just because certain rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they don't exist. And the Declaration of Independence was written with such a concept of matural rights in mind.

As states grant the right to gay marriage, they exist in the states where the right was granted. The Federal government has created protections which go beyond the Bill of rights, you should know that.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights is just a name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are no more or less legitimate than the 11th or the 12th or the 13th. Or, in this case, the 14th. The 14th amendment was ratified legally and legitimately, therefore it is an official part of the US Constitution. Any infringement upon it, which includes gay marriage bans, is unconstitutional.
 
TeleKat said:
Our rights were endowed to us by our creator. Rights are not gifts from government. The 9th amendment acknowledges this when it establishes that that just because certain rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they don't exist. And the Declaration of Independence was written with such a concept of matural rights in mind.



The Bill of Rights is just a name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are no more or less legitimate than the 11th or the 12th or the 13th. Or, in this case, the 14th. The 14th amendment was ratified legally and legitimately, therefore it is an official part of the US Constitution. Any infringement upon it, which includes gay marriage bans, is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

If your rights come from God, explain the one male child policy in China. Did God skip over the right to life in China as a means of population control?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Doesn't matter how many times you dance around and claim a given,
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming a given. I'm pointing out two things which are facts

1) Marriage is a fundamental right

2) Carson has said he believes gays should have equal rights

it's still a circular argument because the Supreme Court has not, as yet, ruled on whether or not SSM is a fundamental right as you claim. Until they do, based on the current law and as even noted in the DOMA ruling, the states determine who is married and who isn't under their individual laws. In DOMA, they just ruled that the federal government couldn't deny a State's interpretation of marriage.
Click to expand...

You are trying to argue that something might make sense because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it yet. That is an absurd argument. Logic doesn't require a SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS rulings determine what the law is or how it is applied, but it doesn't dictate logic.

I appreciate that you don't want to accept that or that you don't want to accept that my opinion is based on the rule of law as it exists today, not as you or I may wish it to be. Doesn't change facts on the ground, however.

I believe the Supreme Court will rule in favour of SSM. It is possible, however, that they will rule that one State's definition cannot infringe on the rights of other States to make their own determination, even if that may infringe on an individual's right of access to federal benefits.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how SCOTUS rules, if marriage is a fundamental right (and it is) and if gays should have equal rights (and Carson believes they do) then denying them the right to marry is a denial of equal rights. Now it is possible that SCOTUS will decide that states govts have a constitutionally valid reason for denying gays this right but that is not the argument that Carson is making.
 
CanadaJohn said:
While I may agree with you, it's not a given. It could also be argued that one State's or several State's definition of marriage may bind the federal government and how it treats married people in that State, it may not bind the ability of another State to determine what marriage is within its borders.
Click to expand...

No, that can't happen. The rights' obsession with "definitions" has no legal weight to it. It's a political argument, not a legal one.States are not free to define anything however they want to if it denies individuals their constitutional rights. Rights can only be limited or denied under certain conditions. The issue in these lawsuits, in almost every case, is whether a govt (be it local, state, or federal) has a legitimate interest in denying this right to same sex couples.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Agreed - and my point was that it really isn't settled law because the Supreme Court has never opined on SSM. Until they do, it's open to interpretation at lower levels and at the State level. Thus, it's not a given that SSM will be ruled as a fundamental right as some are claiming, although I may agree with that interpretation.
Click to expand...

fundamental rights are not something that some people (ie opposite sex couples) have while others (same sex couples) do not. Everyone has the right to marry. The issue is whether or not the govt has the power to limit the right to marry when the couple is of the same sex. In order to limit a fundamental right, the govt has to show that it has a legitimate interest in doing so. So far, no one has been able to demonstrate that such limitations serve any legitimate govt interest.
 
matchlight said:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may or may not be the basis of a Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. But the guarantee of equal protection is not as simple-minded as you imagine. Hundreds of thousands of laws all over the U.S. impose all sorts of disadvantages on specified groups of people every day without raising any equal protection issue. Just think of all those poor, persecuted polygamists!

Anyone who thinks the guarantee of equal protection of the laws is to be taken literally and applied universally should read Nordlinger v. Hahn, in which the Supreme Court upheld California's Proposition 13. The Court held that law did not violate the guarantee of equal protection, even though it required a homeowner to pay a far larger property tax than another homeowner with an almost identical property nearby. Guess that means the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written on.
Click to expand...

In the cases of polygamy and Prop 13, the govt has a legitimate interest in limiting the rights of some people. When it comes to limiting the right to marry to opposite sex couples, what legitimate govt interest is being served?

From the Prop 13 decision
We hold that the acquisition value assessment scheme does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The clause requires only that the classification rationally furthers a legitimate state interest.

The right to travel is not involved in this case.

We detect at least two legitimate state interests: One is in preserving continuity and stability in neighborhood preservation: the other is that a new owner does not have the same reliance interest warranting protection against higher taxes as does an existing owner.
Click to expand...
 
sawdust said:
If your rights come from God
Click to expand...

I never said they came from God. I said they came from our creator, which could just be nature.

explain the one male child policy in China. Did God skip over the right to life in China as a means of population control?
Click to expand...

Just because you have a right, doesn't mean it is impossible for a government to infringe on it.
 
sawdust said:
If you actually read what I've written, with respect to rights, some rights are protected by the Federal government. The Bill of Rights outlines some of those protections. The founders left what is not protected Federally up to the states. Justice Louis Brandeis said that states are the laboratories of democracy. That which is not a Federal responsibility was left to the states. Your question by the way is silly.
Click to expand...

No, that is not true

*ALL* rights are protected, not by the federal govt but by the constitution. The protection offered by the constitution is a limit on the power of govt (at all levels) to limit rights. Specifically, the govt can limit rights but only if it can show that doing so furthers a legitimate interest of govt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom