• 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

Sorry, you have posted nothing that backs up your claim that 90-95% of the people who cast a vote for POTUS do so based on the candidate's opinion on abortion, marriage, or religion.

I won't report your post that calls me names, which you aren't supposed to do. I didn't call you any names. I asked you to back up your claim, which you didn't. I told you that on this board when we make claims, we back them up when asked. And I also posted an example that included Obama's stance on same sex marriage which proves that your claim that 90-95% of the people who voted for (Obama or Romney) did so because of Obama's (or Romney's) position on same sex marriage, because Obama's stated opinion is the opposite of what you would assume his supporters believe.

Have a fun day.

You too have a fun day.

Again though I provided you support. The fact that you don't like that is a book you have to read and not chart or graph you view I cannot help. I would suggest more reading and less demanding in the future.
 
You have confused personal beliefs with support of states rights. As an example, I oppose government involvement in health care but I support the right of Mass. to enact Romneycare. If the majority of a state want to inflict that on themselves, states rights gives them a choice.

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.
 
Do you remember what the question was about?

DADT - a Democrat President's answer to gays in the military. And since it was at that point in time declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and repealed by congress, why was it an issue in a Republican Party debate? And why is a person's sexual preference an issue in military service?

It is unfortunate that a lot of the audience booed the questioner. I believe many were booing the question, however. And you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that Republican voters don't respect the service of men and women of any race or sexual preference in America's armed services.

But the bigoted part, in case you didn't catch on, is you taking that incident and claiming that "mostly only bigots" vote in Republican primaries.

No, the supreme court did no such thing, it had *just* been repealed and several of the candidates said they would bring back the old policy (thus the question being asked was not unreasonable). Are you seriously arguing the vast majority of repub primary voters aren't anti gay? The audience also applauded when the imbecile candidates opened their mouth to call repeal of DADT a "special privilege"

Here's another example: that episode of "family feud" where a contestant said that ellen degeneres "doesn't like our country much", in reaction to the clue that she was a *lesbian* (gasp!), and the audience *applauded* that insanely bigoted comment. Oh go figure, most of the old farts watching daytime game shows are anti gay. Next will you deny this about "duck dynasty" viewers
 
Last edited:
I didn't say they had the power to do anything about rulings they disagree with. Your contention was that the SCOTUS ruling would somehow settle the argument. It has not settled the argument for the VRA, for abortion rights, for campaign finance, for search and seizure, for imminent domain, for guns control...I could go on and on. All of these issues are still Presidential campaign issues.

Is segregation or interracial marriage still a campaign issue? Can you at least admit not everything from 40 years is still a wedge issue?

This is about minority rights, not campaign finance. The bigots die off and there, issue is resolved
 
Is segregation or interracial marriage still a campaign issue? Can you at least admit not everything from 40 years is still a wedge issue?

This is about minority rights, not campaign finance. The bigots die off and there, issue is resolved

Segregation is still issue. I know we would like to think that it is not but it still is. Just wait until Rand Paul garners more support. His past statements on public accommodation will come up. Hell you can look at any number of discussion on this board and find why people think it should be perfectly legal for business to segregate their employees and patrons or not serve some patrons at all. Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled.

You can still find people arguing that the States have the right to deny marriage licenses for any reason including race. While I will admit these are not popular positions by any stretch of the imagination they still play in Presidential politics. There are many on many, especially on the right, that believe States Rights gives individual state the ability to nullify any Federal Law and SCOTUS ruling. Just look at todays news and the majority leader of the US Senate is saying states have the right to nullify federal regulations.
 
People, all people, sometimes stick their foot in their mouth or screw up saying what they are trying to say. The guy apologized. As far as I'm concerned, this non-issue is officially a non-issue.

Don't you feel like you need to ask yourself, "Did Carson walk back on his comment strictly for damage control? Is it more likely than not that he's NOW being dishonest by claiming he didn't mean what he said? Is he truly being contrite? How do you know which version of what he said is actually what he believes?

Dunno. Or .....

Is it possible that he made a stab at impressing a select group whose opinions about gays aren't congruent to the public at large?

It didn't take long for him to discovered that his comment came back and bit him in the ass. So he had to react somehow.

He hasn't even started yet as a bono fide candidate, and he's already jumped into the proverbial frying pan full of controversial and provocative issues that can easily make or break him. Well, in this case - break him.

I mean what about this headline?: "Ben Carson: Religion is needed to interpret science because ‘maybe it’s just propaganda’." That's some far out ****, if you ask me.

It's astounding to me that a man of his background and education would even allow these type things that he's said to roll off of his lips. To me personally, it looks like he thought there would be some kind of political payoff for saying these things - but they backfired.
 
No, the supreme court did no such thing, it had *just* been repealed and several of the candidates said they would bring back the old policy (thus the question being asked was not unreasonable). Are you seriously arguing the vast majority of repub primary voters aren't anti gay? The audience also applauded when the imbecile candidates opened their mouth to call repeal of DADT a "special privilege"

Here's another example: that episode of "family feud" where a contestant said that ellen degeneres "doesn't like our country much", in reaction to the clue that she was a *lesbian* (gasp!), and the audience *applauded* that insanely bigoted comment. Oh go figure, most of the old farts watching daytime game shows are anti gay. Next will you deny this about "duck dynasty" viewers

My comment in post 42 was bang on - you do still have an abundance of bigoted views to spew out and the day is still young.
 
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.

Why is it disingenuous or impossible to support two sides of an opposing argument? Do you believe I'm a liar, as an example, when I identify myself as pro-choice in all matters personal but I oppose many forms of abortion and many circumstances under which abortions are conducted?

You can support someone's or some entity's right to be wrong, can't you?
 
Why is it disingenuous or impossible to support two sides of an opposing argument? Do you believe I'm a liar, as an example, when I identify myself as pro-choice in all matters personal but I oppose many forms of abortion and many circumstances under which abortions are conducted?

You can support someone's or some entity's right to be wrong, can't you?

Well, walk me through it: if you support the right of states to discriminate against LGBT's, how have you supported the rights of LGBT's?
 
He supports LGBT rights, and the right of states to deny them? Seems a bit contradictory.

To the rest, wow! He had a big first day as a prospective presidential candidate.

Dr. Carson is trying to please everyone, the way most politicians perform. However, what's highlighted in Dr. Carson's case, one can plainly see he smacks of evasion. Unknowingly for him, his rhetoric is designed to keep mainstream America away.
 
Well, walk me through it: if you support the right of states to discriminate against LGBT's, how have you supported the rights of LGBT's?

I can personally support individuals' attempts to codify rights that aren't obvious or apparent in law, but also respect the constitutional rights of States, if they conflict. That's what the issue is before the Supreme Court at this time, isn't it? If the Supreme Court rules that States have constitutional rights they are trying to enforce, I can respect that ruling while also believing that any State can be wrong in what legislation they adopt and support efforts to change that legislation.
 
I can personally support individuals' attempts to codify rights that aren't obvious or apparent in law, but also respect the constitutional rights of States, if they conflict. That's what the issue is before the Supreme Court at this time, isn't it? If the Supreme Court rules that States have constitutional rights they are trying to enforce, I can respect that ruling while also believing that any State can be wrong in what legislation they adopt and support efforts to change that legislation.

You're discussing this in abstract, general terms in order to avoid the fact that its application in this instance can't be applied. So I ask you again: if you support the right of states to discriminate against LGBT's, how have you supported the rights of LGBT's?
 
Last edited:
He explained, "Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question."

:doh Who says 'they come out gay?' Just because they participate in butt sex in prison...for sex, for favors, for dominance/submission, by force...doesnt mean they 'turned' gay.

I'd like to see some sources on straight men or women coming out of prison gay. A few? Maybe but people end up significantly changed by that experience anyway, perhaps they just discovered what had been repressed by social conditioning. Happens to people not in jail as well.
 
I can personally support individuals' attempts to codify rights that aren't obvious or apparent in law, but also respect the constitutional rights of States, if they conflict.

States are not allowed to infringe on the rights of individuals so there is no conflict.

Carson believes that gays should have equal rights but also believes the constitution allows states to infringe on their rights. He also believes that the constitution reserves to states the power to decide social issues. It does not. This misunderstanding of constitutional law renders him ineligible for the presidency
 
You're discussing this in abstract, general terms in order to avoid the fact that its application in this instance can't be applied. So I asked you again: if you support the right of states to discriminate against LGBT's, how have you supported the rights of LGBT's?

Sorry, I deal in the real world, not in some ideological bubble where all things are decided for me.

I believe that States have constitutional rights - one of those may be to define marriage as they see fit. I didn't write the constitution and I'm not so presumptuous as to assume I could have done it better. It is what it is and the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of disputes in that regard. I'm fine with that.

I'm not aware of any document that states or inherent right that's a given, that places the definition of marital status as greater than law. It's why I believe the government shouldn't be in the marriage business and why this fight wouldn't exist if government sanctioned benefits and privileges didn't accrue to those who hold a government sanctioned marriage certificate.

All that said, if the government is going to continue to be in the marriage business and continue to mete out privileges and benefits based on their piece of paper, then I'm all for any two people entering into such a contract/agreement. I don't, however, believe that the privilege of holding a piece of paper is greater than a State's constitutional rights to legislate.
 
Last edited:
So you want me to not only provide you with links to research but read the research to you also...demand much?

You made a claim. You are the one that has to support it.

Otherwise we dismiss it as conjecture or even BS.
 
Success in a field that requires various types of intelligence certainly does. This isn't like a DP member pretending to be a doctor but displaying biblical levels of stupidity. This is a person who is a demonstrably well respected member of his professional community because the nature of his work requires both versatility and knowledge. Sorry, his comment may be stupid, but Ben Carson certainly isn't.

I am not certain that his specialty requires much intelligence, though it does require knowledge but that can be aquired through rote memorization which I do not consider a particularly accurate sign of intelligence.

In addition, there are people who are extremely skilled when it comes to one specific area but fail at nearly everything else that requires more than a minimum of intelligence. Those people are considered cognitively impaired.
 
People, all people, sometimes stick their foot in their mouth or screw up saying what they are trying to say. The guy apologized. As far as I'm concerned, this non-issue is officially a non-issue.

Funny, people still bring up Obama mistakenly saying there were 57 states. Some people swore he didnt know better.

This entire issue as it appears in various forms re: politicians just shows people will justify anything if they are too rigid in their views regarding party or biases.
 
States are not allowed to infringe on the rights of individuals so there is no conflict.

Carson believes that gays should have equal rights but also believes the constitution allows states to infringe on their rights. He also believes that the constitution reserves to states the power to decide social issues. It does not. This misunderstanding of constitutional law renders him ineligible for the presidency

To be fair, Carson believes that gays can have equal rights under the law without having the definition of marriage altered to accommodate that equality. Many agree - many don't.

As for Carson being rendered ineligible to be President if he has a misunderstanding of constitutional law, you'd have to agree that the current President, who's been shot down by the Supreme Court in a couple of instances, should be removed from office.
 
Sorry, I deal in the real world, not in some ideological bubble where all things are decided for me.

So deal in the real world already and explain how if you support the right of states to discriminate against LGBT's, you have supported the rights of LGBT's.

I believe that States have constitutional rights - one of those may be to define marriage as they see fit. I didn't write the constitution and I'm not so presumptuous as to assume I could have done it better. It is what it is and the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of disputes in that regard. I'm fine with that.

I'm not aware of any document that states or inherent right that's a given, that places the definition of marital status as greater than law. It's why I believe the government shouldn't be in the marriage business and why this fight wouldn't exist if government sanctioned benefits and privileges didn't accrue to those who hold a government sanctioned marriage certificate.

All that said, if the government is going to continue to be in the marriage business and continue to mete our privileges and benefits based on their piece of paper, then I'm all for any two people entering into such a contract/agreement. I don't, however, believe that the privilege of holding a piece of paper is greater than a State's constitutional rights to legislate.
 
To be fair, Carson believes that gays can have equal rights under the law without having the definition of marriage altered to accommodate that equality. Many agree - many don't.

I think our history has proven that "separate, but equal" is not equal.

As for Carson being rendered ineligible to be President if he has a misunderstanding of constitutional law, you'd have to agree that the current President, who's been shot down by the Supreme Court in a couple of instances, should be removed from office.

Not just a misunderstanding about some trivial portion of constitutional law, but something that is fundamental to understanding how the law works. The idea that a state law can deprive someone of their rights simply because a majority voted for it demonstrates a fundamental confusion about rights.
 
So deal in the real world already and explain how if you support the right of states to discriminate against LGBT's, you have supported the rights of LGBT's.

I already have - just because you fail to understand or refuse to accept the explanation doesn't dismiss that fact.
 
I mean what about this headline?: "Ben Carson: Religion is needed to interpret science because ‘maybe it’s just propaganda’." That's some far out ****, if you ask me.
.

Is that real? Or from the Onion?

If real, it's terrifying. I wouldnt have him as my doctor either.
 
I think our history has proven that "separate, but equal" is not equal.



Not just a misunderstanding about some trivial portion of constitutional law, but something that is fundamental to understanding how the law works. The idea that a state law can deprive someone of their rights simply because a majority voted for it demonstrates a fundamental confusion about rights.

I'd suggest the fundamental misunderstanding in this instance is on your part since the Supreme Court has yet to rule whether or not there is a constitutional right to marriage and what the definition of marriage may or may not be if that right exists.

I'll defer, of course, if you can point out for me what section of the US constitution explicitly provides for the right to a marriage license for anyone, SSM or otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom