• 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

Removable Mind said:
Carson made the comment on Meet the Press. And it's circulating around various sites, but no, not the Onion.

Here:

Sooo...just throwing out another remark that, in my opinion, isn't a good time to be denying "evolution" for any serious presidential hopeful.
Click to expand...

Dear God....

LOL, pun intended after the fact!
 
matchlight said:
It's not that any state is trying to enforce a constitutional right by excluding same-sex partners in its marriage laws. States which continue to do that--as every state had always done until not many years ago--claim this exclusion from legal marriage does not raise any constitutional issue, any more than the exclusion of multiple partners, or ones who are younger than some specified age, or already married, or more closely related by blood than some specified degree. That's my view also.

Family law has always been almost exclusively a state concern, and nothing in the Constitution prevents any state that chooses to from allowing homosexuals to marry each other. But people who want to advance the homosexual agenda are not content to leave it to the majority in each state to decide in their marriage laws. The democratic process is too slow for them, and they are intolerant of what they see as intolerance. These crusaders want to make everyone dance to their tune--and now.

That is why they want the Supreme Court to concoct a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, just as people who wanted to advance the abortion agenda wanted--and got--the Court to concoct a constitutional right to abortion four decades ago. If that means making the Constitution say things most of us know very well it does not say, they could not care less. All they care about is imposing their will on everyone who does not share their glowing approval of homosexuality, and if that requires torturing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment into something unrecognizable, if's fine by them. Most of these people don't much like the Constitution anyway.
Click to expand...

The constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written on, if it can't guarantee equal protection. So whatever, i couldn't care less about the legal bickering, only the results. Nothing is being imposed on you either, so it doesn't effect you in the slightest.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Well, you were wrong.

So, in other words, my comment was correct, discounting your false implication.
Click to expand...

No, not correct because you implied that some gays wanted CUs instead of marriage. That's not completely accurate. They supported CUs in the face of no other options on the foreseeable horizon.
 
Hatuey said:
And neither determines whether the person is stupid or not. :shrug: Perfectly rational people believe silly things. There are incredibly rational members on this forum who believe vaccines have a link to alzheimer's. Other members on this forum have degrees in science but happen to be libertarians. Again, your personal beliefs on a single subject do not determine your level of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Preponderance of evidence....it's building.

Not believing in evolution has been added. :doh
 
zimmer said:
If it is not a choice, then identical twins would both be gay or not. And boom goes that theory.
Click to expand...

Being gay isnt related to a specific gene, so you're wrong.

Did you think that to be born a certain way, it must be genetic???? There's no gene for heterosexuality.....
 
After listening to Carson talk.....would you trust him to operate on your brain?




He's famous for being a doctor of last resort.
 
AGENT J said:
it doesnt "seem" it is contradictory

i support woman and blacks rights and Constitutional protections but if the stat wants to treat them as lesser i support that too! lol

he is obviously one of those tools that THINKS and FEELS they are already treated equal . . .
Click to expand...


Carson is trying to say all the right words even if they are contradictory.
 
Lursa said:
Being gay isnt related to a specific gene, so you're wrong.

Did you think that to be born a certain way, it must be genetic???? There's no gene for heterosexuality.....
Click to expand...

If you have identical twins, then it stands to reason they must have the same sexual orientation... if it's not a choice.
Identical is identical... and it stands to reason they could be separated at birth, grow up in different environments and both would either be or not be gay.

A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[9] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources ...

The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results;

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Carson made the comment on Meet the Press. And it's circulating around various sites, but no, not the Onion.

Here:

Sooo...just throwing out another remark that, in my opinion, isn't a good time to be denying "evolution" for any serious presidential hopeful.
Click to expand...

YIKES! Calling evolution "propaganda" is pretty bad.

Not if that serious presidential hopeful wants to appeal to a broad spectrum of potential voters.
 
zimmer said:
If you have identical twins, then it stands to reason they must have the same sexual orientation... if it's not a choice.
Click to expand...

Who's reason, yours?

Since they dont have to and it's not a choice, then it doesnt stand to reason at all.

Did you 'choose' to be straight?

(And your link didnt even say it was a choice :doh)
 
Gina said:
Carson is trying to say all the right words even if they are contradictory.
Click to expand...

lol I agree, he is TRYING . . . .
poor guy is in way over his head

he also made the statement that he just isnt going to talk about gays anymore, that he "learned his lesson"

well benny, i got news for you . . . .you just decided to run or feel out the waters for president and right now in todays political climate/atmosphere equal rights/gay rights is a big topic so you dont have a choice . . .

you either talk about it and get bashed for your feelings that many will judge as bigoted or you dont talk about it and you get bashed for being a topic dodger and people still assume its because your views are bigoted and you dont want to share them :shrug:

like i have said many times, he lost before he even started
 
Gina said:
YIKES! Calling evolution "propaganda" is pretty bad.

Not if that serious presidential hopeful wants to appeal to a broad spectrum of potential voters.
Click to expand...

I dont know, states like S. Dakota, Kansas, and TX are still attempting to teach creationism in science classes to dispute evolution. Bet there's other states that would love to jump on that bandwagon....but hopefully not the majority of the people (bet it could be close tho!)
 
AGENT J said:
lol I agree, he is TRYING . . . .
poor guy is in way over his head

he also made the statement that he just isnt going to talk about gays anymore, that he "learned his lesson"

well benny, i got news for you . . . .you just decided to run or feel out the waters for president and right now in todays political climate/atmosphere equal rights/gay rights is a big topic so you dont have a choice . . .

you either talk about it and get bashed for your feelings that many will judge as bigoted or you dont talk about it and you get bashed for being a topic dodger and people still assume its because your views are bigoted and you dont want to share them :shrug:

like i have said many times, he lost before he even started
Click to expand...

It doesn't speak well to his preparation for a run. When he decided to announce his exploratory status, he should have had basic responses to hot topical questions canned and ready to go. That means thinking about the outcome of said response BEFORE it came out of his mouth, because you are right. Presidential candidates are compelled to discuss their views on everything or be labeled a dodger. He can't just wave hand say "no comment". LOL
 
sangha said:
There's nothing circular about repeating the relevant points in order to show how the other points are irrelevant

Marriage is a fundamental right. This is a fact, and I've shown that SCOTUS has stated this.

Carson believes that gays should have equal rights. This (ie "should have") is an opinion, but it is a fact that this is his opinion.

If gays should have equal rights, and marriage is a right, then gays should have the right to marry. It is a contradiction to claim you both support equal rights *and* the power of states to deny some people their rights.

There's no getting around that. If you're getting dizzy, it's from trying to find a way around this.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how many times you dance around and claim a given, 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.

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.
 
sangha said:
Even more importantly is that the ruling stated the denying the benefits to SSM couples is a form of gender discrimination which served no legitimate governmental interest. That same line of thinking is why the court will invalidate any and all SSM bans.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lursa said:
Who's reason, yours?

Since they dont have to and it's not a choice, then it doesnt stand to reason at all.

Did you 'choose' to be straight?

(And your link didnt even say it was a choice :doh)
Click to expand...

These are identical twins... identical in every way... so yes... reason says that both would be oriented one way or another... that is why they funded studies of thousands of identical twins.
 
Gina said:
1.)It doesn't speak well to his preparation for a run. When he decided to announce his exploratory status, he should have had basic responses to hot topical questions canned and ready to go. That means thinking about the outcome of said response BEFORE it came out of his mouth, because you are right. Presidential candidates are compelled to discuss their views on everything or be labeled a dodger. He can't just wave hand say "no comment". LOL
Click to expand...

I totally agree 100%!!!! im thinking because of his mental superiority at surgery he just thinks he can easily figure out the rest. He obviously doesnt have any people(advisers) yet or he ignores them.
 
Lursa said:
I said in most states....that was opinion AND fact. I did qualify not all states as a couple had approved it.

Obama's was still opinion.

Carson's statement was not opinion, it was factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

Obama's was an opinion, and a very bad opinion. I'm just curious why he got a pass and Carson doesn't. Or I guess more importantly, I still don't understand why anyone cares what Carson thinks about the issue anyway.
 
Paperview said:
Because there is a Circuit Court split on the matter -- and that's what they generally do when there is a split.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tres borrachos said:
Obama's was an opinion, and a very bad opinion. I'm just curious why he got a pass and Carson doesn't. Or I guess more importantly, I still don't understand why anyone cares what Carson thinks about the issue anyway.
Click to expand...

IMO the distinction is that Obama's was his opinion (and again...mostly accurate at that time) and Carson's was a statement of fact that was actually wrong. It wasnt his opinion, he actually believes or believed that men 'are turned gay' in prison.
 
matchlight said:
It's not that any state is trying to enforce a constitutional right by excluding same-sex partners in its marriage laws. States which continue to do that--as every state had always done until not many years ago--claim this exclusion from legal marriage does not raise any constitutional issue, any more than the exclusion of multiple partners, or ones who are younger than some specified age, or already married, or more closely related by blood than some specified degree. That's my view also.

Family law has always been almost exclusively a state concern, and nothing in the Constitution prevents any state that chooses to from allowing homosexuals to marry each other. But people who want to advance the homosexual agenda are not content to leave it to the majority in each state to decide in their marriage laws. The democratic process is too slow for them, and they are intolerant of what they see as intolerance. These crusaders want to make everyone dance to their tune--and now.

That is why they want the Supreme Court to concoct a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, just as people who wanted to advance the abortion agenda wanted--and got--the Court to concoct a constitutional right to abortion four decades ago. If that means making the Constitution say things most of us know very well it does not say, they could not care less. All they care about is imposing their will on everyone who does not share their glowing approval of homosexuality, and if that requires torturing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment into something unrecognizable, if's fine by them. Most of these people don't much like the Constitution anyway.
Click to expand...

I would not have used the same language, but the effect is the same.
 
Lursa said:
I dont know, states like S. Dakota, Kansas, and TX are still attempting to teach creationism in science classes to dispute evolution. Bet there's other states that would love to jump on that bandwagon....but hopefully not the majority of the people (bet it could be close tho!)
Click to expand...

I bet there are, but calling the theory of evolution "propaganda" will narrow a candidate's appeal. I think more so than just plainly saying he's a creationist. Even if a voter could over look or respect that he straight out just believes in creationism, labeling those who believe in evolution as propagandists or believing in propaganda, would make it more difficult to accept his position.
 
Lursa said:
IMO the distinction is that Obama's was his opinion (and again...mostly accurate at that time) and Carson's was a statement of fact that was actually wrong. It wasnt his opinion, he actually believes or believed that men 'are turned gay' in prison.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of religious people believe that being gay is a choice. I'm sure they would also say what he did about prison and heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activity. That's his opinion. I think it's wrong, but Obama's was also wrong in 2008. And people still voted for him, knowing that as POTUS he opposed the idea of same sex marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom