• 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

I already have - just because you fail to understand or refuse to accept the explanation doesn't dismiss that fact.

No, you've hidden behind lengthy and obscure explanations of your principles in order to avoid facing that you can't apply your principles in this case.
 
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.

Wrong, SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.

Carson has said that gays should have the same rights

Well, unless it's called marriage. Then gays should not have the equal right to have the govt recognize their marriage.

As Cardinal has pointed, it is a contradiction to say you think they have equal rights, but states should be allowed to deny them equal rights.

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.

Again, the constitution does not allow the govt at any level to deny rights to anyone, and SCOTUS has stated that marriage is a fundamental right.

Because you've got it backwards, you're asking the wrong question. The relevant question is "where does the constitution give states the power to deny gays their individual rights?" The answer is "it doesn't"
 
Last edited:
No, you've hidden behind lengthy and obscure explanations of your principles in order to avoid facing that you can't apply your principles in this case.

Thank you for respecting my opinion and telling me what I think.

We're done.
 
I am not certain that his specialty requires much intelligence

8 years of school, + whatever years of specialisation + practical application of all it + learning to use new techniques in that field. What you're not certain of is irrelevant. If being a ****ing neurosurgeon doesn't require much intelligence, I'm sure you'll be able to do it? Get serious and cut the partisanship. It's bull****.
 
Regardless of how SCOTUS rules, Carson has said that gays should have the same rights

Well, unless it's called marriage. Gays should have the equal right to have the govt recognize their marriage.

As Cardinal has pointed, it is a contradiction to say you think they have equal rights, but states should be allowed to deny them equal rights.

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.

The difficulty, for you and Cardinal, is that you don't appreciate that having a government sanctioned marriage license has yet to be determined to be a constitutional right of birth or citizenship. I appreciate your view and his - as I've said, if the government is going to be in the marriage business, I don't believe the government should be dictating what is or isn't a marriage for purposes of the license and the benefits and privileges that accrue to holding that license.

But it's false to claim it is a constitutional right at this point in time. The Supreme Court may very well rule that way, in which case your interpretation will be validated. I simply point out that at this time, the issuance of marriage licenses is a State responsibility, not a federal one. Until the time comes when the Supreme Court rules contrary to that point, I support States being able to establish legislation they are constitutionally charged with.
 
8 years of school, + whatever years of specialisation + practical application of all it + learning to use new techniques in that field. What you're not certain of is irrelevant. If being a ****ing neurosurgeon doesn't require much intelligence, I'm sure you'll be able to do it? Get serious and cut the partisanship. It's bull****.

I have known many people with advanced degrees who are morons.
 
The difficulty, for you and Cardinal, is that you don't appreciate that having a government sanctioned marriage license has yet to be determined to be a constitutional right of birth or citizenship. I appreciate your view and his - as I've said, if the government is going to be in the marriage business, I don't believe the government should be dictating what is or isn't a marriage for purposes of the license and the benefits and privileges that accrue to holding that license.

But it's false to claim it is a constitutional right at this point in time. The Supreme Court may very well rule that way, in which case your interpretation will be validated. I simply point out that at this time, the issuance of marriage licenses is a State responsibility, not a federal one. Until the time comes when the Supreme Court rules contrary to that point, I support States being able to establish legislation they are constitutionally charged with.

Even when SCOTUS does determine this, nothing makes anyone 'agree' with it. They may have to comply but not agree.

That's the disturbing part. BC seems to believe in separate but equal for gays. So, still, do some people for blacks. Some still want abortion illegal, some dont believe that individuals have the right to carry guns on their persons. When *politicians* make these claims, of course it calls their true intentions (in potential positions of power) into question.
 
I have known many people with advanced degrees who are morons.

That's great, Ben Carson doesn't just have an advanced degree. He is a well respected member of his professional community. With that said, his professional life, which is all any of us have as evidence of his intelligence shows him to be a intelligent man. Again, his comments may have been stupid, but he certainly isn't a stupid person. :shrug:
 
The difficulty, for you and Cardinal, is that you don't appreciate that having a government sanctioned marriage license has yet to be determined to be a constitutional right of birth or citizenship.
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
 
That's great, Ben Carson doesn't just have an advanced degree. He is a well respected member of his professional community. With that said, his professional life, which is all any of us have as evidence of his intelligence shows him to be a intelligent man. Again, his comments may have been stupid, but he certainly isn't a stupid person. :shrug:

He believes that prison turns people gay.

I mean what about this headline?: "Ben Carson: Religion is needed to interpret science because ‘maybe it’s just propaganda’."

That's 'evidence' to the contrary.
 
Even when SCOTUS does determine this, nothing makes anyone 'agree' with it. They may have to comply but not agree.

That's the disturbing part. BC seems to believe in separate but equal for gays. So, still, do some people for blacks. Some still want abortion illegal, some dont believe that individuals have the right to carry guns on their persons. When *politicians* make these claims, of course it calls their true intentions (in potential positions of power) into question.

That's fair. But the argument for many in the gay community and those who support them had always been that civil unions don't provide them with the same benefits and privileges under the law that a marriage certificate does. What Carson, and many others agree, says is that civil unions should be given, under legislation, the exact same benefits and privileges as marriage, without changing the historical definition of marriage. The gay community has move past that position to wanting/demanding SSM codified. I don't argue against their position, but it's not fair to claim it's a matter of equal rights when it's simply a matter of dispute over definition now.
 
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.

Carson can't have it both ways and that's just what the LGBT community sees in a statement like this:
Carson said he supports rights and Constitutional protections for LGBT people plus the right for states to approve or deny gay marriage.

One cannot say they support rights in one breathe while then voicing support of the state to deny those rights in the next.
 
That's fair. But the argument for many in the gay community and those who support them had always been that civil unions don't provide them with the same benefits and privileges under the law that a marriage certificate does. What Carson, and many others agree, says is that civil unions should be given, under legislation, the exact same benefits and privileges as marriage, without changing the historical definition of marriage. The gay community has move past that position to wanting/demanding SSM codified. I don't argue against their position, but it's not fair to claim it's a matter of equal rights when it's simply a matter of dispute over definition now.

That's because marriage wasnt an option and wasnt being offered. For yrs previously however, gays were being thrown a bone with civil union proposals. (no pun intended)

No gay people went around not desiring marriage and requesting CU's instead.
 
That's fair. But the argument for many in the gay community and those who support them had always been that civil unions don't provide them with the same benefits and privileges under the law that a marriage certificate does. What Carson, and many others agree, says is that civil unions should be given, under legislation, the exact same benefits and privileges as marriage, without changing the historical definition of marriage. The gay community has move past that position to wanting/demanding SSM codified. I don't argue against their position, but it's not fair to claim it's a matter of equal rights when it's simply a matter of dispute over definition now.

How is denying gay people the right to marry, which SCOTUS has said is a fundamental right, not a denial of equal rights?
 
That's fair. But the argument for many in the gay community and those who support them had always been that civil unions don't provide them with the same benefits and privileges under the law that a marriage certificate does. What Carson, and many others agree, says is that civil unions should be given, under legislation, the exact same benefits and privileges as marriage, without changing the historical definition of marriage. The gay community has move past that position to wanting/demanding SSM codified. I don't argue against their position, but it's not fair to claim it's a matter of equal rights when it's simply a matter of dispute over definition now.

You are aware that civil unions were banned in the Constitutions of over a dozen states, right? Do you think gay rights proponents passed those bans? I am sick and tired of this revisionist history.

Carson supported partial rights civil unions, not full rights civil unions.
 
That's because marriage wasnt an option and wasnt being offered. For yrs previously however, gays were being thrown a bone with civil union proposals. (no pun intended)

No gay people went around not desiring marriage and requesting CU's instead.

I never said that.
 
He believes that prison turns people gay.

Yes, and Obama believed marriage was between a man and a woman until recently. Those are stupid statements based on personal belief and bias. It doesn't mean that the person behind them is stupid.
 
That's fair. But the argument for many in the gay community and those who support them had always been that civil unions don't provide them with the same benefits and privileges under the law that a marriage certificate does. What Carson, and many others agree, says is that civil unions should be given, under legislation, the exact same benefits and privileges as marriage, without changing the historical definition of marriage. The gay community has move past that position to wanting/demanding SSM codified. I don't argue against their position, but it's not fair to claim it's a matter of equal rights when it's simply a matter of dispute over definition now.

If I am not mistaken someone proposed that here before Hedi Fry railroaded the law.

I was told by a gay activist friend "it's too late" we would have accepted that a few years ago, now it's about equality.

All movements of change, from ML King's civil rights movement to women's rights and abortion have their own momentum which often surpass the original intent. In this case that became a matter of defining what a "marriage" means both legally and socially.

The concern on both sides should be that that definition process not migrate over to the spiritual definition......there are some fanatics just stupid enough to try to sue to force a church to marry them, and at least one judge clueless enough to grant them their wish
 
Excellent and thanks.

However, if it's settled law, why is the Supreme Court taking up the issue rather than simply vacating any lower court ruling to the contrary?

DOMA. Until it was struck down, the issue was not considered a federal question.
 
I never said that.

Well it's implied here:

That's fair. But the argument for many in the gay community and those who support them had always been that civil unions don't provide them with the same benefits and privileges under the law that a marriage certificate does. .


It's not completely accurate, since some proposed CUs did offer all the same benefits and privileges...basically everything but the title 'marriage.'

That's how 'separate but equal' is relevant to that 'workaround' to gays marrying.
 
You are aware that civil unions were banned in the Constitutions of over a dozen states, right? Do you think gay rights proponents passed those bans? I am sick and tired of this revisionist history.

Carson supported partial rights civil unions, not full rights civil unions.

I'm not prepared to blame Dr. Carson for the actions of the dozen or more States you note above, unless you can prove he was active in those endeavours. I am, however, prepared to accept him at his word when he says he supports full and equal rights for civil unions without changing the historical definition of marriage.

Perhaps you have some documentation that indicates Carson is lying in that regard.
 
Yes, and Obama believed marriage was between a man and a woman until recently. Those are stupid statements based on personal belief and bias. It doesn't mean that the person behind them is stupid.

One is an opinion (Obama) and was accurate at the time in almost all the US, and one is ignorance in the face of fact (Carson).
 
Back
Top Bottom