• 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 never said they came from God. I said they came from our creator, which could just be nature.



Just because you have a right, doesn't mean it is impossible for a government to infringe on it.

There are no such things as universal rights globally. Rights vary by nation because government create them.
 
There are no such things as universal rights globally. Rights vary by nation because government create them.

So government can take them away at will, correct? All of them and any of them. For any reason.
 
So government can take them away at will, correct? All of them and any of them. For any reason.

It certainly is capable of that. There are any number of historical examples. Ultimately, rights are just a collective agreement that only function when the people with the firepower agree to them.
 
I made a claim and provided a link that explains with factual evidence why I make that claim. Again I am not going to spoon feed people research. If you do not like or do not read the material I give that helps form my opinions then that is your problem not mine. You and others seem to think everything should be wrapped up into a convenient little chart or graph or a paragraph or two you can read in 5 minutes. Not everyone is ADD. Some people actually read books. It is the totality of evidence that points to my conclusions. I provided links to one such source I use. Like it...don't like it...I do not care but you cannot claim I am not supporting my argument. You can claim you don't like the way I support my argument but that is your problem not mine. You obviously didn't dismiss my claim because you took the time to post about it.

You gave statistics and posted them as if they were fact.

WHen asked to provide sources for those statistics, THEN you admitted they were your opinion. After getting rude and defensive.

That is the objection.
 
You gave statistics and posted them as if they were fact.

WHen asked to provide sources for those statistics, THEN you admitted they were your opinion. After getting rude and defensive.

That is the objection.

I did not post statistics as facts. The poster I responded to made and inane comment about removing religion, abortion and marriage from political debate. I stated that would remove 90-95% of the reason Americans vote. That is hardly a hard statistic. It is a generality born from my research into American Political Science. If I were quoting a statistic I would have said 91.5% of the voters in the 20XX election voted based on XXXXX. That is a specific claim. What I stated was generality based on posters ridiculous notion that you can take religion et al out of politics.

Feel free to object all you want but do not suggest that I do not back up what I say. He requested a link to source my statement. I provided one. I cannot control the fact that he or you didn't like the link. Object to the fact that I posted a general argument fine. It was an in kind response to the ridiculous general notion that you can somehow remove religion, marriage and abortion from politics.
 
So government can take them away at will, correct? All of them and any of them. For any reason.

Absolutely. Look at the rights taken from gays and women taken in the Middle East. Every despotic regime in the world takes, or refuses to grant all sorts of rights we enjoy, or used to enjoy prior to Obama.
 
Absolutely. Look at the rights taken from gays and women taken in the Middle East. Every despotic regime in the world takes, or refuses to grant all sorts of rights we enjoy, or used to enjoy prior to Obama.

Which freedoms do we not enjoy anymore? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
I support the right of states to govern themselves in every area that isn't in conflict with constitutionally mandated Federal responsibilities. I believe that the states have the right to outlaw the marriage of children or animals because there is no Federal mandate to regulate marriage. The lack of a Federal mandate gives them authority to regulate all marriage.

It's also fine with me if the states deregulate marriage all together. I really don't care who marries who as long as children and animals are protected. Marriage doesn't define relationships, they are defined by honesty, trust, commitment and love. All this other **** is just a side show.

Um, okay. I was responding to the idea that one can support both state rights (that discriminate against LGBT's) and LGBT rights, which are incompatible.
 
I did not post statistics as facts. The poster I responded to made and inane comment about removing religion, abortion and marriage from political debate. I stated that would remove 90-95% of the reason Americans vote. That is hardly a hard statistic. It is a generality born from my research into American Political Science. If I were quoting a statistic I would have said 91.5% of the voters in the 20XX election voted based on XXXXX. That is a specific claim. What I stated was generality based on posters ridiculous notion that you can take religion et al out of politics.

Feel free to object all you want but do not suggest that I do not back up what I say. He requested a link to source my statement. I provided one. I cannot control the fact that he or you didn't like the link. Object to the fact that I posted a general argument fine. It was an in kind response to the ridiculous general notion that you can somehow remove religion, marriage and abortion from politics.

LOLOLOL

Then you use a different dictionary from everyone else. And you provided sources that were only foundational. You drew your own conclusions and derived your 'statistics.' And posted them as fact.

Just own it and move on. TB has, and I would have....I let it go until you tried to 'save face' with me later in the thread.
 
I'm not claiming a given. I'm pointing out two things which are facts

1) Marriage is a fundamental right

2) Carson has said he believes gays should have equal rights

Marriage isn't a right anymore than healthcare is a right.
 
Marriage isn't a right

Sure it is

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.”
 
Right...because the best he can expect is a handful of votes in the primaries..

As educated a she may be, Sarah Palin has a better chance of being president, I do not know why you people have to go on advertising him....maybe it takes your mind off lyin Hillary

The reason I started this thread was that it has to be the weirdest start to a political campaign of filing paperwork to create a presidential exploratory committee and then two days later already having to apologize for something he said.
All candidates misspeak and from time to time have to correct themselves. But in this case the guy isn't even out of the stall and having to backpedal. If this is any indication of his campaign then it will provide comedy. Probably this is just revealing that this guy has never ran for a political office before amd cannot just speak without a prepared speech.
 
The guy is confused and would not make a decent President. What is worse, he also doesn't have a backbone.
 
Um, okay. I was responding to the idea that one can support both state rights (that discriminate against LGBT's) and LGBT rights, which are incompatible.

Did you oppose the war in Iraq and support the troops? Would you rather not wear a seat belt but wear one because the state says you must? Do you oppose the KKK but understand the government protects their free speech. Is the Westborough Church allowed to protest their lunacy because their free speech rights are protected? Life is full of situations where we personally oppose activities which are protected by the state. When we do this, we respect the supremacy of governments power to organize society while we disagree with what that power enforces.

I don't support Obama's illegal alien policy but I have to accept it because I have now power to stop it. My belief is incompatible with the actions of the state. Doesn't make me a hypocrite. Likewise, it's possible to support states rights but disagree with states on issues.
 
The reason I started this thread was that it has to be the weirdest start to a political campaign of filing paperwork to create a presidential exploratory committee and then two days later already having to apologize for something he said.
All candidates misspeak and from time to time have to correct themselves. But in this case the guy isn't even out of the stall and having to backpedal. If this is any indication of his campaign then it will provide comedy. Probably this is just revealing that this guy has never ran for a political office before amd cannot just speak without a prepared speech.



So the point is comedy?

The point I think is the usual smear to take attention away from the other carnivals happening now, Hillary had no emails, honest. Oops, there are 50,000 that she just didn't remember in that silly blonde head of hers. Obama is chasing red lines, then he isn't, then he is, then it's debate over what to call the enemy....and meanwhile, we just executive order our way to new and higher taxes to pay for all this largess....all while Americans are being killed

This buffoon hasn't sent anyone to their death.....and will never have the chance

Have a good laugh at this guy, as many are laughing at your country. That's where the comedy really is...
 
Regardless of how SCOTUS rules, if marriage is a fundamental right (and it is) and if gays should have equal rights (and Carson believes they do) then denying them the right to marry is a denial of equal rights.

Only if you are so arrogant to believe your view and vantage point on the issue is the only way anyone else can possibly think

If one believes marriage is a fundamental right, and believes that homosexuals deserve equal constitutional rights, the fact they can get married can mean they have "equal rights" to you. Nothing constitutionally has been established that there's a constitutional right to a specific type of marriage or ANYTHING a to do with "who you love", only that there's a right to the concept of marriage. It's perfect logical for someone to square those two thoughts away by telling themselves that since gays can get married in the same fashion as everyone else then they have equal rights with everyone else as it relates to the "right" of marriage
 
Only if you are so arrogant to believe your view and vantage point on the issue is the only way anyone else can possibly think

If one believes marriage is a fundamental right, and believes that homosexuals deserve equal constitutional rights, the fact they can get married can mean they have "equal rights" to you. Nothing constitutionally has been established that there's a constitutional right to a specific type of marriage or ANYTHING a to do with "who you love", only that there's a right to the concept of marriage. It's perfect logical for someone to square those two thoughts away by telling themselves that since gays can get married in the same fashion as everyone else then they have equal rights with everyone else as it relates to the "right" of marriage

You'll have to explain how that view squares with Loving v. Virginia. Whites could marry whites, blacks could marry blacks. So the Virginia law clearly passes your test with flying colors. But the Virginia law was struck down - do you disagree with that ruling?

And even if there was some legal basis to conclude that gays have no actual right to get married, it simply isn't logical to support that by stating the irrelevant fact that a gay man can marry a woman and that this arrangement provides a gay couple with "equal rights" to straight couples. For the "right" to marriage to have ANY meaning at all, it must include the right to marry the spouse of YOUR choice, the person you love and want to spend a lifetime with.
 
Evidently you don't have a complete grasp of states rights. Any individual has the right to hold beliefs which are in disagreement with the state.

I think the point is if one says the state can violate a 'right' then it's not a right at all but a privilege. Imagine if I said I believe in the right to bear arms, but also the right for the state to prohibit the lawful ownership of firearms. It's just a weasel way of saying that I don't actually believe that individuals have any such rights, and that gun ownership is a privilege to be granted or not by the state at its discretion.
 
the fact that "you people" base your votes on someone's stance on whether you are born gay or not........it's a perfect example of why you people are a danger to the health of the country. I mean, honestly, who bases their vote on that?! This guy could have every fix for the economy in his back POCKET and you wouldn't vote for him because of this dumb crap. unbelievable. and the rest of us have to try and argue with "you people" and rationally explain that their are a HUNDRED bigger problems to deal with that effect MANY, MANY more citizens than just the gay community. insane
 
the fact that "you people" base your votes on someone's stance on whether you are born gay or not........it's a perfect example of why you people are a danger to the health of the country. I mean, honestly, who bases their vote on that?! This guy could have every fix for the economy in his back POCKET and you wouldn't vote for him because of this dumb crap. unbelievable. and the rest of us have to try and argue with "you people" and rationally explain that their are a HUNDRED bigger problems to deal with that effect MANY, MANY more citizens than just the gay community. insane

False choice. First of all, I don't see anything in Carson's record that even hints that he's has the fix for the economy in his back pocket - I'm guessing that I'll disagree with his economic stances as much or more than I do with his stance on homosexuality. And there is a very high correlation between liberal views on social issues and liberal views on economics, and vice versa.

Besides, social issues are wedge issues for both sides. For every liberal who will NOT vote for Carson because of his views on gays, there is a conservative who WILL support him for the same stance. Same with guns, abortion, religion, etc.
 
Marriage isn't a right anymore than healthcare is a right.

It is a recognized right in the US. You can disagree with it being a right, you can think it should not be, but legally it is a right until you either get the Supreme Court to declare that it no longer is, or amend the constitution. Saying that it is not a right is kinda ignorant.
 
Only if you are so arrogant to believe your view and vantage point on the issue is the only way anyone else can possibly think

If one believes marriage is a fundamental right, and believes that homosexuals deserve equal constitutional rights, the fact they can get married can mean they have "equal rights" to you. Nothing constitutionally has been established that there's a constitutional right to a specific type of marriage or ANYTHING a to do with "who you love", only that there's a right to the concept of marriage. It's perfect logical for someone to square those two thoughts away by telling themselves that since gays can get married in the same fashion as everyone else then they have equal rights with everyone else as it relates to the "right" of marriage

and again, it is a well defined constitutional doctrine that the govt can infringe or limit a right only when it has a legitimate interest in doing so. So far, none of the opponents of SSM have been able to identify a legitimate governmental interest in denying same sex couples the right to marry.

Protecting the word marriage? Not a legitimate governmental interest

Protecting children? SSM doesn't harm children.

Protecting religion? SSM doesn't harm religion.

If you know of a legitimate governmental interest that is furthered by prohibiting SSM's, please let me know what is is.
 
The reason I started this thread was that it has to be the weirdest start to a political campaign of filing paperwork to create a presidential exploratory committee and then two days later already having to apologize for something he said.
All candidates misspeak and from time to time have to correct themselves. But in this case the guy isn't even out of the stall and having to backpedal. If this is any indication of his campaign then it will provide comedy. Probably this is just revealing that this guy has never ran for a political office before amd cannot just speak without a prepared speech.

Carson should not have caved.

The scientific evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait is poor.
Most self avowed gay men have a sexual relationship with a woman at some point in their lives.
More men are self avowed bisexual than homosexual.
There are more self avowed straight married men who have occasional sexual contact with the same sex than there are self avowed homosexual and bisexual men.
The idea that homosexuals are all born that way and can't help it is political fiction.
 
Carson should not have caved.

The scientific evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait is poor.
Most self avowed gay men have a sexual relationship with a woman at some point in their lives.
More men are self avowed bisexual than homosexual.
There are more self avowed straight married men who have occasional sexual contact with the same sex than there are self avowed homosexual and bisexual men.
The idea that homosexuals are all born that way and can't help it is political fiction.

None of which makes his comment any more accurate or less stupid. He was poorly prepared for handling a question outside his comfort zone and did not handle it well. While the research on the topic has not shown yet what exactly determines orientation, the one thing that pretty much all research shows is that choice is the least likely answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom