• 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

LowDown said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody has said every homosexual is born that way, but there sure are a lot of bigoted christians claiming all homosexuals aren't born that way. The real question is why any of you give even the slightest **** as to what other people do with their genitals.

zimmer said:
Marriage isn't a right anymore than healthcare is a right.
Click to expand...

Since you think it's not a right does that mean you would be completely ok with it if we banned all christians from marrying? Apparently if it's not a right that means we can give and take it away arbitrarily.
 
Redress said:
the one thing that pretty much all research shows is that choice is the least likely answer.
Click to expand...

Yet very often which sex a person happens to be relating to has more to do with opportunity than anything else. That is to say, a lot of people go whichever way depending on what's available.

Male sexuality is fluid, not static, according to Camille Paglia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xXThqohiZo
 
LowDown said:
Yet very often which sex a person happens to be relating to has more to do with opportunity than anything else. That is to say, a lot of people go whichever way depending on what's available.

Male sexuality is fluid, not static, according to Camille Paglia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xXThqohiZo
Click to expand...

Who you have sex with, and what your orientation are, are two different things.
 
Redress said:
Who you have sex with, and what your orientation are, are two different things.
Click to expand...

Well, that shoots a big hole in the idea that choice isn't involved, if I catch your meaning.
 
JoeTrumps said:
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
Click to expand...

"He could be a unicorn, why wont you vote for him!!??"
 
I doubt any American has ever elected a President who agreed with that American on every issue. I really don't CARE what a candidate's personal position is on abortion or the death penalty or guns or gay marriage or evolution/creationism or any other controversial topic that gets tossed around on message boards.

What I want to know is if the candidate believes it is the federal government's prerogative to order such things. If he does, even if I agree with his position, I will consider him unsuitable for office. If he does not, then we're good to go.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, however with respect to gun rights, it's codified on the Federal level and our system doesn't allow the states to override Federal statutes. Gay marriage is still being litigated and state by state it's becoming a right but not yet in every state so to your point, it's a right with an asterisk.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no constitutionally protected right to marriage in general. That's why state laws against bigamy, polygamy, or marriage between partners who are more closely related by blood than some specified degree, or who are younger than some specified age, are not unconstitutional.
 
matchlight said:
There is no constitutionally protected right to marriage in general. That's why state laws against bigamy, polygamy, or marriage between partners who are more closely related by blood than some specified degree, or who are younger than some specified age, are not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I dont know what you mean by "in general", but there's a clear reason why the govt can prohibit bigamy, polygamy and marriage between close relations and it's not because marriage is not a right. It's because those prohibitions further a legitimate governmental interest.
 
matchlight said:
There is no constitutionally protected right to marriage in general. That's why state laws against bigamy, polygamy, or marriage between partners who are more closely related by blood than some specified degree, or who are younger than some specified age, are not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Correct. Number of partners in a contract is not a protected classification, so any unequal treatment under the law would fall only under the rational basis test under the 14th amendment, if challenged. It's a fairly low bar, and one could easily argue that the various legal complications regarding inheritance, child custody, etc, are sufficient to keep marriage between only two people.

Gender, however, is a protected classification and therefore the level of scrutiny is higher. Intermediate scrutiny requires that the measure in question be "substantially related" to furthering an "important state interest."

No such interest exists in defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There is no state interest being met by preventing two men from signing a marriage contract with each other.
 
LowDown said:
Well, that shoots a big hole in the idea that choice isn't involved, if I catch your meaning.
Click to expand...

Actually it does not. You can choose who you have sex with. It is unlikely that most people can choose "enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions".
 
matchlight said:
There is no constitutionally protected right to marriage in general. That's why state laws against bigamy, polygamy, or marriage between partners who are more closely related by blood than some specified degree, or who are younger than some specified age, are not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

By law, in the US, marriage is a "fundamental right". This is true in every state.
 
Deuce said:
Correct. Number of partners in a contract is not a protected classification, so any unequal treatment under the law would fall only under the rational basis test under the 14th amendment, if challenged. It's a fairly low bar, and one could easily argue that the various legal complications regarding inheritance, child custody, etc, are sufficient to keep marriage between only two people.

Gender, however, is a protected classification and therefore the level of scrutiny is higher. Intermediate scrutiny requires that the measure in question be "substantially related" to furthering an "important state interest."

No such interest exists in defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There is no state interest being met by preventing two men from signing a marriage contract with each other.
Click to expand...

I would bet a lot of money that if and when the Supreme Court decides this issue, the "intermediate" standard of review it has used in cases involving discrimination on the basis of sex (or mental retardation in Cleburne) will play no part whatever in the decision. That seems clear to me from looking at the line of argument Justice Kennedy seemed to follow in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor.

Obviously animosity toward a certain group--"naked hostility," as I think the Court has put it--is not a rational basis for any law that disadvantages that group. A law that is arbitrary or irrational is always invalid, because it is not really a law at all. But the Court has sometimes set the bar in rational basis review much lower than just "fairly low." It showed just how far it may defer to the legislature in Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949). The Court said in that case that it would uphold a law if it represented a "first step" toward any legitimate legislative goal, even if the law were an unwise one, and even if it did not go very far toward any such goal.
 
Redress said:
By law, in the US, marriage is a "fundamental right". This is true in every state.
Click to expand...

That statement is not accurate. There is no fundamental right of nine-year-olds to marry. Neither is there any fundamental right to bigamous and polygamous marriage, or to incestuous marriage. And to date, the Supreme Court has never implied there is any fundamental right to homosexual marriage.

You might want to look into the standards the Court applies to determine if a right is fundamental, for the purpose of applying to the states in Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis. It's stated pretty well in Washington v. Glucksberg, and Justice Scalia discusses it in detail in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
 
matchlight said:
That statement is not accurate. There is no fundamental right of nine-year-olds to marry. Neither is there any fundamental right to bigamous and polygamous marriage, or to incestuous marriage. And to date, the Supreme Court has never implied there is any fundamental right to homosexual marriage.

You might want to look into the standards the Court applies to determine if a right is fundamental, for the purpose of applying to the states in Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis. It's stated pretty well in Washington v. Glucksberg, and Justice Scalia discusses it in detail in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
Click to expand...

No, you are not understanding. Marriage is a fundamental right. That does not mean that it cannot be regulated to an extent, just as the right to free speech does not mean you can libel others or "cry fire in a crowded theater". Being a fundamental right, any law that limits that right must meet certain criteria.
 
beefheart said:
Carson is pure Comedy Gold. Can't wait for the idiotic gaffes to dribble from this oaf's mouth.
Click to expand...

Funny, you didn't mind having Biden as your VP.
 
Redress said:
No, you are not understanding. Marriage is a fundamental right. That does not mean that it cannot be regulated to an extent, just as the right to free speech does not mean you can libel others or "cry fire in a crowded theater". Being a fundamental right, any law that limits that right must meet certain criteria.
Click to expand...

Please explain to those of us who lack your understanding of constitutional law the extent to which state laws can regulate a fundamental right like marriage. Just what are those "certain criteria," exactly, that state laws restricting fundamental rights have to meet? Tell us just what standard a right has to meet to be fundamental and apply to the states in Fourteenth Amendment due process analysis. How can states so cruelly violate the fundamental right to marriage in all their laws against bigamy and polygamy, and ones that exclude partners who are nine years old or who are brother and sister from marriage, and get away with it?
 
matchlight said:
Please explain to those of us who lack your understanding of constitutional law the extent to which state laws can regulate a fundamental right like marriage. Just what are those "certain criteria," exactly, that state laws restricting fundamental rights have to meet? Tell us just what standard a right has to meet to be fundamental and apply to the states in Fourteenth Amendment due process analysis. How can states so cruelly violate the fundamental right to marriage in all their laws against bigamy and polygamy, and ones that exclude partners who are nine years old or who are brother and sister from marriage, and get away with it?
Click to expand...

Lets use your example of laws barring 9 year olds from marrying. Based on the 14th amendment, there are 3 levels of scrutiny that could apply. The most strict is called Strict Scrutiny, which applies in cases of fundamental rights. For a law restricting a fundamental right, it must pass 3 tests:

1: The law must be a compelling government interest. This is somewhat vague, but it is certainly safe to say that protecting minors is a compelling government interest, so no problem on that front.
2: The law must be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest. In this case, a law prohibiting minors below a certain age would fit, as it applies to that interest.
3: The law must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Again, in this example, making it illegal for those under a certain age to marry is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest.
 
matchlight said:
That statement is not accurate. There is no fundamental right of nine-year-olds to marry. Neither is there any fundamental right to bigamous and polygamous marriage, or to incestuous marriage. And to date, the Supreme Court has never implied there is any fundamental right to homosexual marriage.

You might want to look into the standards the Court applies to determine if a right is fundamental, for the purpose of applying to the states in Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis. It's stated pretty well in Washington v. Glucksberg, and Justice Scalia discusses it in detail in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
Click to expand...

You are playing word games. SCOTUS has clearly stated that marriage is a fundamental right. In the circumstances you mention, the state has a legitimate interest that is furthered by such limitations.
 
I have to give Carson credit for his apology. It wasn't half assed and it came off as completely thorough and sincere. Kudos to him.
 
sawdust said:
Did you oppose the war in Iraq and support the troops?
Click to expand...

Yes. I did not support the war, but I supported the troops. Opposing the war by not supporting the troops, not taking emotional/moral arguments into consideration, is patently ridiculous, because it's not our soldiers who chose which war they would be deployed to. So my opposition to the war was directed toward the people who created it in the first place: the Bush administration. However, I believe that soldiers should receive much better veteran benefits than they currently do.

Would you rather not wear a seat belt but wear one because the state says you must?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the relevance of this question to the topic.

Do you oppose the KKK but understand the government protects their free speech.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand the relevance of this one. So does Carson oppose LGBT rights?

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.
Click to expand...

Er...yes, but Carson said he supports LGBT rights.

sawdust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Alright, that's nice, but Carson said he supports both LGBT rights while supporting the rights of an entity to discriminate against them. CandaJohn wasn't able to answer this question so perhaps you can take a whack at it: how do you demonstrate the rights of the state to discriminate against LGBT's while equally supporting LGBT rights?

At the very least Carson is prioritizing one over the other, because if one wins, the other is going to lose.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes. I did not support the war, but I supported the troops. Opposing the war by not supporting the troops, not taking emotional/moral arguments into consideration, is patently ridiculous, because it's not our soldiers who chose which war they would be deployed to. So my opposition to the war was directed toward the people who created it in the first place: the Bush administration. However, I believe that soldiers should receive much better veteran benefits than they currently do.



I don't understand the relevance of this question to the topic.



I really don't understand the relevance of this one. So does Carson oppose LGBT rights?



Er...yes, but Carson said he supports LGBT rights.



Alright, that's nice, but Carson said he supports both LGBT rights while supporting the rights of an entity to discriminate against them. CandaJohn wasn't able to answer this question so perhaps you can take a whack at it: how do you demonstrate the rights of the state to discriminate against LGBT's while equally supporting LGBT rights?

At the very least Carson is prioritizing one over the other, because if one wins, the other is going to lose.
Click to expand...

I think he is playing politician with a very fast moving topic. It's changing so fast that I think holding both positions at this point allows him to appease the conservatives who don't want the change but the changes' inevitability will allow him to claim support before all the walls fall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom