• 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

CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. That doesn't change the contradiction in Carson's position. He believes that states are allowed to deny people their rights.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding about how our constitutional system of law works.
 
sangha said:
It doesn't matter. That doesn't change the contradiction in Carson's position. He believes that states are allowed to deny people their rights.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding about how our constitutional system of law works.
Click to expand...

he's right.. .states ARE allowed to deny marriages licenses...though some states outlaw denying them based on sexuality ( which he also supports)
 
CriticalThought said:
DOMA. Until it was struck down, the issue was not considered a federal question.
Click to expand...

If I understood that ruling correctly, DOMA was only partially struck down, as it relates to denial of federal benefits for those in same sex marriages. It did not guarantee a right to same sex marriage, it only provided that in States where same sex marriage is legal, those who are married under those laws cannot be denied federal marriage benefits.

Because of this ruling, I would agree that it's likely that the court will now rule that SSM is a right in all States because of equal protection rights. But the court has not, as yet, made such a ruling.
 
CriticalThought said:
Won't hurt him. Social conservatives will view it as curtailing what he really believes to win moderate votes and moderates will forget about it in a week.
Click to expand...


I agree. Although, I agree too it's hypocritical. You can't say you support LGBT people and the states to decide because well look at where we are now.... I am glad he apologized for saying being something is a choice. That's a good thing because maybe someone else might think about it if it's something from someone who used to think one way and changed his mind about it. I hope he's sincere about it though.... that will help even more. But if one person's mind is changed from this person's public speaking about it well that is a good thing.
 
Lursa said:
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).
Click to expand...

In 2008 it was accurate to state that marriage was only between a man and a woman (translation - no marriage for gay people)? I must be ahead of my time, because in 2008 that isn't what I believed. And that doesn't excuse him, does it? Obama made a statement based on his own beliefs/bias/whatever, like Hatuey said. It was an opinion, and Carson's opinion is just an opinion. Neither are/were right, but one has said his opinion changed, and the other hasn't, although he just said it the other day, and Obama said he opposed gay marriage for many years.
 
Lursa said:
Well it's implied here:
Click to expand...

Well, you were wrong.




Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, my comment was correct, discounting your false implication.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If I understood that ruling correctly, DOMA was only partially struck down, as it relates to denial of federal benefits for those in same sex marriages. It did not guarantee a right to same sex marriage, it only provided that in States where same sex marriage is legal, those who are married under those laws cannot be denied federal marriage benefits.

Because of this ruling, I would agree that it's likely that the court will now rule that SSM is a right in all States because of equal protection rights. But the court has not, as yet, made such a ruling.
Click to expand...

True. There is plenty of precedent that marriage is a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right. What is under debate is whether marriage extends to same-sex couples.
 
sangha said:
It doesn't matter. That doesn't change the contradiction in Carson's position. He believes that states are allowed to deny people their rights.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding about how our constitutional system of law works.
Click to expand...

It's a circular argument, and I'm getting dizzy. If you want my response, just revert back to what I said previously and carry on.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If I understood that ruling correctly, DOMA was only partially struck down, as it relates to denial of federal benefits for those in same sex marriages. It did not guarantee a right to same sex marriage, it only provided that in States where same sex marriage is legal, those who are married under those laws cannot be denied federal marriage benefits.

Because of this ruling, I would agree that it's likely that the court will now rule that SSM is a right in all States because of equal protection rights. But the court has not, as yet, made such a ruling.
Click to expand...

The important thing to note with respect to this issue and DOMA, is that DOMA neither allows nor prohibits same sex couples from marrying each other. Because it does neither, challenges to that law do not raise the issue of whether a state can deny the right to marry to couples of the same sex.
 
Lursa said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
CriticalThought said:
Won't hurt him. Social conservatives will view it as curtailing what he really believes to win moderate votes and moderates will forget about it in a week.
Click to expand...

The good thing is that he will keep on saying stuff like this.
 
sangha said:
The important thing to note with respect to this issue and DOMA, is that DOMA neither allows nor prohibits same sex couples from marrying each other. Because it does neither, challenges to that law do not raise the issue of whether a state can deny the right to marry to couples of the same sex.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think as I noted in my comment to Critical Thought that this previous Supreme Court ruling on DOMA will open the way to requiring all States to recognize SSM because access to federal benefits should not be denied in one State while available in another.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's a circular argument, and I'm getting dizzy. If you want my response, just revert back to what I said previously and carry on.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Personally, I think as I noted in my comment to Critical Thought that this previous Supreme Court ruling on DOMA will open the way to requiring all States to recognize SSM because access to federal benefits should not be denied in one State while available in another.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Crosscheck said:
File paperwork to create a presidential exploratory committee on Monday, having to backpedal on Wednesday.

The clowncar has arrived and the clowns are exiting.
Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice - NBC News
Click to expand...

If it is not a choice, then identical twins would both be gay or not. And boom goes that theory.

With all the problems our country faces, with the massive debt, weakened military, terrorists gaining strength and expanding their territorial gains, Iran on the verge of getting nukes, this is what really matters to Leftists?

Of course... they need some sideshow to divert the ignorant from the really important stuff.

Peter King said:
The good thing is that he will keep on saying stuff like this.
Click to expand...

Peter, in your quote, didn't the Mayor of Rotterdam tell them to **** off?
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by CanadaJohn

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?
Click to expand...
Because there is a Circuit Court split on the matter -- and that's what they generally do when there is a split.
 
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...

Obama is less than eloquent without a teleprompter too. I have views on many issues that will not fit on a bumper sticker. But campaigning is theater played for the voting public which tends to have a short attention span and no taste for nuance. This is only an issue for those who wouldn't vote for him anyway. Interesting enough, the same people who make a big deal about this will not comment on "At this point what difference does it make", or "We have to pass it so we can see what's in it."
 
Lursa said:
Is that real? Or from the Onion?

If real, it's terrifying. I wouldnt have him as my doctor either.
Click to expand...

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

Here:
WASHINGTON -- Dr. Ben Carson defended President Barack Obama Sunday against criticism that he was too inexperienced to be president. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Carson went on to suggest that certain scientific ideas, like evolution, are "just propaganda."

Ben Carson Defends Obama But Not Evolution
Click to expand...

Sooo...just throwing out another remark that, in my opinion, isn't a good time to be denying "evolution" for any serious presidential hopeful.
 
Crosscheck said:
File paperwork to create a presidential exploratory committee on Monday, having to backpedal on Wednesday.

The clowncar has arrived and the clowns are exiting.
Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice - NBC News
Click to expand...

lol thats funny.
Just one for the reason he will never be president.
Wait till he is asked about muslims.
He made a statement that he wont be talking about gays rights anymore . . . like he has a choice . . .can't run for president and not talk about equal rights and important national issues.

Anybody that puts as much pure bigotry on display for the country to see will never be president
 
Gina said:
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.
Click to expand...

it doesnt "seem", it is contradictory

i support woman and blacks rights and Constitutional protections but if the state wants to treat them as lesser i support that too! lol <end sarcasm>

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

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.
 
tres borrachos said:
In 2008 it was accurate to state that marriage was only between a man and a woman (translation - no marriage for gay people)? I must be ahead of my time, because in 2008 that isn't what I believed. And that doesn't excuse him, does it? Obama made a statement based on his own beliefs/bias/whatever, like Hatuey said. It was an opinion, and Carson's opinion is just an opinion. Neither are/were right, but one has said his opinion changed, and the other hasn't, although he just said it the other day, and Obama said he opposed gay marriage for many years.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom