• 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

You know what, I've humoured you this far, but I'm sick of it and I don't give a flying **** what you think of my opinion and I'm not going to spend another moment of my day amending and correcting your bastardization of what I post. Read my posts, agree or disagree, or ignore them - I don't care.

Have a good day.

I sure will now that I don't have to read that exchange.


t occurs to me that this is one of the more active threads and has been since it started. It has encompassed the full gamut from "what about Bush, Sarah Palin, evolution, and gay whatever....I mean in my world no one gives a **** whether it is a choice or not. People are what they bloody well are.

But the real fascinating point, awesome really, that we have arrived here, inevitable for sure, in a thread about a Republican black man, who has about as much chance of being president as Justin Trudeau in Canada, who has said only that he wants to raise money to see about running for president in an election that is two years away.

Some one is very edgy, to say the least, about what is happening in the Republican camp
 
Actually, Carson's argument, even though he never meant it this way, is an illustrative way to show these or those that think homosexuality is the same as being a race or gender, need only ask themselves whether going to jail could in any way force someone to go black, if white, or turn female if male? ;)

Often on these forums those that are in support of gay rights will say that being gay is a state of mind, as if this actually has any material or practical meaning within the proper syntax and understanding of linguistics. A state of mind is always fluid, almost never static, and ones state of mind is wholly dependent on the circumstances and influences they are embroiled in. For instance, I'm not a murderer, and I have never killed anyone (that's my story and I'm sticking to it ;) ), however, sometimes when I watch the news, or I encounter evil, I have often placed myself in that mindset whereby, I actually think if presented with the opportunity, I would indeed take someone's life. Anger, emotions, rage, all of which are uncontrollable urges we have no real understanding of, but at the time, other than actually taking action, I am for all intents and purposes a murderer, or someone capable of it. This is what a state of mind means in any context, and syntax is properly established and logical, however, until I actual do take action I am not a murderer, but the narrative from the gay left is that, regardless, I am still a murderer just like whether I was actually being gay or acting gay.

Illogical, right? You betcha, not only is it illogical, it psychological gobbily goop, or word-speak! In order to be defined as something, one needs to actually do that something, but how does anyone know without knowing the mind of the individual? The answer is we define them by their actions at any given moment. Outside of rape, a man consensually having sex with another man, or women having sex with another woman is by all measures acting in a way that defines them as gay. An urge of sexual gratification can be handled simply by self-pleasuring, but no, in jail or anywhere else, the urge for self pleasure or pleasure seems to only be satisfied by the action of homosexuality. The leap from sexual need turns from an urge to a conscious choice, and the pattern or made by which it manifest isn't nearly as important that the leap is what defines our state of mind at the time.

It's why some younger females experiment with bi-sexuality or exclusive lesbianism, and why some men do at early ages, but what I find curious is that, boys who experiment seem to adopt the almost always exclusive homosexual identification, whilst young ladies, either adopt an adult bi-sexuality (until later in life where they ultimately choose one or the other but rarely both) or heterosexuality, with only a very small margin of those younger females that experiment choose or adopt an identity that is exclusively homosexual. The differences in the sexes and sexuality is often overlooked in psyche circles, why? I have no real way of knowing, but I suspect that it feels uncomfortable for them to explore with the intuitive answer being females can choose their sexuality more often than not, whilst men seem to not be as so fluid, suggesting that, at least with females sexuality is a choice. Something I suspect leaves psychologist and apologists really confused.

I believe that sexuality is glaring more or less complex in women in that they appear to have a better handle over it, whereas with men, it seems to get them early and sticks more often than not. I have my theories as to why, mostly in prefrontal context development between the sexes, but nothing I can prove conclusively. The inescapable fact is though, that sexuality to one degree or another is fluid, somewhat of a choice, and defined by ones state of mind at any given moment.

Tim-
 
It has nothing to do with my agreeing with either. Marriage between 2 same sex people is wrong? That's opinion. And yes, I objected to his opinion.

Gay being a choice: not an opinion so believing it is either willful or unintentional (based on religious belief...fine, same difference)...ignorance.

Ha ha ha...I was going to use an example like: if his opinion is that the sky is purple and not blue....is he wrong or that's 'just his opinion.'

And then I remembered that stupid thing going around about the dress! LOL

Some people see the sky as purple. I don't even know what "blue" is except what I think it is. For all I know I see it differently.

My point is Carson has an opinion that is probably the result of his religious beliefs. Obama also invoked God at different times when he said that about marriage. Carson's opinion that being gay is a choice is no more harmful than the POTUS candidate displaying and articulating a clear opposition to SSM, which is what Obama did. Yet I believe a lot of people still voted for him in spite of that.

OMG are you talking about the "is it blue and black or white and gold" thing with the dress? I'll bet that was emailed to me at least 20 times by different friends and shared on my FB page 220 times. I was ready to find that dress and kill it with a pair of scissors. Argh!
 
I personally don't think he should be running for office at all. I've been saying for the last year that he's not a politician. I don't think he has what it takes to lie, cheat, pontificate, etc. But I'm not sure how much less offensive to people he's going to be on this issue anyway. He doesn't approve of gay people, and I don't see that ever changing. There's not really a way he can sugar coat that to make it appealing to many.

Hope all is well with you Shoelady!

I don't disagree with any of that. I didn't think it was a good idea for him to run either. He may be popular on the talk circuit, but that doesn't translate to being electable or even a viable candidate to compete.

Yes, it is all well and good and I hope it is with you, TB!
 
So everyone is mad because he said that gay sex in prison if proof that being gay is a choice. .

I dont think anyone is mad....we are commenting on his beliefs as appropriate for a political candidate. And almost everyone in the thread seems to agree it's not a good choice for him.

I do see those that are gay or see such views as disrespectful of gays not 'appreciating' his 'opinion.' But of course he's entitled to his beliefs.
 
No, not reaching for anything.

Did you decide to be straight?

Yours is a junior high debate tactic. Does not work here. Welcome to the Big Leagues.

This is not about me, but about a scientific study of 7,600 Swedish identical twins related to homosexuality being a choice or not.

It's a choice.
 
Some people see the sky as purple. I don't even know what "blue" is except what I think it is. For all I know I see it differently.

My point is Carson has an opinion that is probably the result of his religious beliefs. Obama also invoked God at different times when he said that about marriage. Carson's opinion that being gay is a choice is no more harmful than the POTUS candidate displaying and articulating a clear opposition to SSM, which is what Obama did. Yet I believe a lot of people still voted for him in spite of that.

OMG are you talking about the "is it blue and black or white and gold" thing with the dress? I'll bet that was emailed to me at least 20 times by different friends and shared on my FB page 220 times. I was ready to find that dress and kill it with a pair of scissors. Argh!

I saw a great one that showed a blue chicken and asked, "What color is my cat?" So funny!

Well we can continue to split hairs but I guess it's not that important. We'll just have to disagree. :cool:
 
Yours is a junior high debate tactic. Does not work here. Welcome to the Big Leagues.

This is not about me, but about a scientific study of 7,600 Swedish identical twins related to homosexuality being a choice or not.

It's a choice.

I'm the one with a background in biology....you obviously are not. You couldnt even interpret the study properly.

And you cant even answer a very basic question: did you choose to be straight?
 
McCain didn't move into the White House in 2009, so Palin didn't help him win.

Misinformed, a very short memory at best, and downright deceitful at worst. (Your lean is laughable btw)

Here, let me help you recall what YOU wrote.

I believe that we heard this same story back when Sarah Palin was helping McCain lose in 2008. :roll:
 
I'm the one with a background in biology....you obviously are not. You couldnt even interpret the study properly.

And you cant even answer a very basic question: did you choose to be straight?

Your education was a wasted one then, as you're blinded by ideology... and ignore science.

I sure wouldn't want you doing any research... it'd be perverted with self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
Your education was a wasted one then, as you're blinded by ideology... and ignore science.

What ideology?

And you still didnt answer: did you choose to be gay?

Why no answer?
 
Misinformed, a very short memory at best, and downright deceitful at worst. (Your lean is laughable btw)

Here, let me help you recall what YOU wrote.



I know what I wrote and I also know that McCain lost, he didn't win. So how did Palin help him ? :roll:
 
What ideology?

And you still didnt answer: did you choose to be gay?

Why no answer?

It's obvious... you ignore science in an attempt to fulfill your idea(ology) of the world.

I told you some points ago, those junior high tactics have no place here. It's not about me and my choices.

A study of 7,600 Swedish identical twins reveals truths about choice.

Your ideology doesn't allow you to accept it because it upsets your world view. That's a typical Lib trait, and a terrible one for anyone who has anything to do with science to embrace.
 
I'm the one with a background in biology....you obviously are not. You couldnt even interpret the study properly.

And you cant even answer a very basic question: did you choose to be straight?

The answer is that we are all predisposed to be straight. Evolution chose our sexuality, however, somewhere along the line our social evolution allowed us more liberties, where our sexual urges were not dealt with by our built-in self gratification mechanism, but instead consciously and consensually and in some cases without consent, on others. Masturbation is generally agreed upon by most biologists and anthropologists to be a vestige (Yes they actually use that word) of our ancestral lack of mates at any given moment throughout history. It was a way of us to cope with our needs and urges without upsetting the social hierarchy. It was an evolutionary advantages for us, and a necessary one. I think it still is, but I do understand how many might think of it as a vestige leftover in our DNA.

That said, it is typically not in dispute that we evolve socially much faster than we have biologically, and as a result for anyone that thinks about this in more objective scientific terms, it's not hard to make the logical connection why some might assume homosexuality is more a socially conscious choice than it is anything related to our biological and evolutionary disposition.


Tim-
 
I know what I wrote and I also know that McCain lost, he didn't win. So how did Palin help him ? :roll:

Yes, you really are that intellectually bankrupt.

You make a claim, I rebut it... proving you wrong, then you pull a greasy move to try and weasel out of it.

Lech Wałęsa would not be amused.
 
It's obvious... you ignore science in an attempt to fulfill your idea(ology) of the world.

I told you some points ago, those junior high tactics have no place here. It's not about me and my choices.

A study of 7,600 Swedish identical twins reveals truths about choice.

Your ideology doesn't allow you to accept it because it upsets your world view. That's a typical Lib trait, and a terrible one for anyone who has anything to do with science to embrace.

So, talking about me instead of the discussion....yeah, that's not an avoidance tactic. /sarcasm

Ok. Well, if you want to discuss like an adult, why not just answer my simple question: did you choose to be straight?
 
So, talking about me instead of the discussion....yeah, that's not an avoidance tactic. /sarcasm

Ok. Well, if you want to discuss like an adult, why not just answer my simple question: did you choose to be straight?


I took your challenge, care to answer me, Lursa?

Tim-
 
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.





For some people it will never be a non-issue and they will remember this.
 
So everyone is mad because he said that gay sex in prison if proof that being gay is a choice. Okay. Maybe I missed the scientific studies that were done on why people engage in homosexual sexual activities in prison that either back him up or prove him wrong. I missed them.

Barack Obama said marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's much better, because he never mentioned that he had proof of that.

Lesson to future politicians - never say "I have proof" or else the opposing party will be very upset. Say whatever you want about your opinion, though.

Well, I agree the "PROOF" part really was a bad way to take on that issue.

But let my repost the following from a previous post in this thread that states what the American Psychological Association says about "Sexual Orientation":

The American Psychological Association notes that while there is "there is no consensus among scientists" on how sexual orientation develops, few individuals experience a "sense of choice" on the matter.

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.

However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of one's own sex) and bisexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.

Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female)* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing.

Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one's sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.


APA Understanding Sexual Orientation

The lines I bolded in red in the piece out of APA, I believe shoots down Carson's proof - if their description has any credibility at all.

Prison sex just doesn't fit those descriptions for men who consider themselves to be heterosexual, but have a homosexual experience or experiences in prison. And who only have heterosexual relationships outside of prison.
:shrug:
 
So, talking about me instead of the discussion....yeah, that's not an avoidance tactic. /sarcasm

Ok. Well, if you want to discuss like an adult, why not just answer my simple question: did you choose to be straight?

You're the one who claimed to be the biologist. I observed not a rather professional mindset for one... ignoring the results of a scientific study of 7,600 pairs of identical twins, specifically related to whether homosexuality is a choice or not.

It's a choice.
 
Or he has bad advisers who didn't think through the issues that will come up right out of the gate.

ugh, lol if thats the case they need fired immediately
 
The answer is that we are all predisposed to be straight. Evolution chose our sexuality, however, somewhere along the line our social evolution allowed us more liberties, where our sexual urges were not dealt with by our built-in self gratification mechanism, but instead consciously and consensually and in some cases without consent, on others. Masturbation is generally agreed upon by most biologists and anthropologists to be a vestige (Yes they actually use that word) of our ancestral lack of mates at any given moment throughout history. It was a way of us to cope with our needs and urges without upsetting the social hierarchy. It was an evolutionary advantages for us, and a necessary one. I think it still is, but I do understand how many might think of it as a vestige leftover in our DNA.

That said, it is typically not in dispute that we evolve socially much faster than we have biologically, and as a result for anyone that thinks about this in more objective scientific terms, it's not hard to make the logical connection why some might assume homosexuality is more a socially conscious choice than it is anything related to our biological and evolutionary disposition.


Tim-

Interesting answer but not one I've seen supported in any professional medical journals. I agree that we are all predisposed to be 'straight' when sperm meets egg but there are many influences on the mother during pregnancy, causing releases of hormones and other substances during stresses (probably at very specific points in development), that can cause a change. And this affects other things besides sexual orientation. It's very possible similar things affect autism and ADHD, for example. (includes other environmental effects too, like exposure to certain chemicals, things she eats/drinks,nicotine etc)

And sexuality and libido occur on a range. It's more fluid in some people. Just like there is a range of heights for men and women, yet you can still generalize and say that men are taller than women. Some people are strongly influenced by their sexuality and some are not. Some are almost at the mercy of their bodies when it comes to having sex and others dont miss it all all....some people can be bis-sexual simply because their preference for either gender is not that strong. Or more so for one than the other but enjoying sex in general overcomes any social conditioning to just forbid oneself.
 
Back
Top Bottom