Ben Carson: Prisons prove being gay is a choice

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Cuervo

I think we have lost focus as to what is needed in a president or presidential candidate.

Everyone sees problems.

But each candidate has his/her own individual solutions.

And that's what we should be voting for.

The solutions that are needed to correct the problems.

Is a persons viewpoint on homosexuality going to influence the solutions?

Not sure how "gay" will effect taxes, foreign policy.

As for the "gay" issue, the Supreme Court will decide that soon enough regardless of what the president wants or feels.

But you are positioning that argument as if social issues are not problems and that the only problems are the concrete ones that involve money or war.

If Ben Carson came out and said "I think gay folks are disgusting freaks of nature but I will do everything in my power to assure they are able to legally marry in all 50 states" (assuming that it doesn't happen soon, anyway), then I wouldn't let his personal prejudice cross him off my list. But socially conservative politicians sooooo rarely take that stance. Their stance is normally along the lines of "My mamma raised me to hate such-n-such therefore I will take steps to promote legislation that works towards its demise, regardless of any irony it inflicts upon my platform of freedom".

Don't you see? If a liberal was very anti-gun, wouldn't you assume he or she would promote legislation that would infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights? It's a fair assumption because it's normally correct. It sucks that it's correct and we need more exceptions to that rule but that's the way it is for now with nearly every politician.

You make a point, only because of Obama's attack on the 2nd Amendment.

Yet even Obama's attacks have not totally disarmed America.

So even a rabid anti-gay president would have minimal impact, unless you are suggesting that Obama's anti-2nd stance is effective.

Butt sex is only gay if you enjoy it.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Bahahaha.

No No, I think it's perfect. He might even reply to that one. Send it to his official twitter account?

twitter.com...

lol

~Tenth

This guy has a bad case of "Reality Deficit Disorder". Just like so many other politicians. Why is there even an argument as to whether being gay is a choice?

Nobody has made a national debate about why some people are attracted to brunettes, or asians, or brown eyes. Maybe we need to find out if those things are a choice, or why I was born with a penchant for Tall, blue-eyed, Japanese girls? It's ridiculous. I could care less if being Gay is a choice, or a natural inclination. How does that persons choice/inclination affect me? It doesn't. I still live my life like I always did. It's none of my business.

Being with a partner of the same gender should be treated no differently than someone choosing to be with their preference of the opposite gender. Sheesh! We really need to get a grip, and put our focus on something that matters.

originally posted by: grey580
It's like the republican party has become a real life onion parody of a party.

Do these guys site around smoking crack and writing down the craziest things they can think of?

How do they make up stuff like this?

What's baffling to me is how many supporters they have. It's as if logic and reason are alive and well all over the place, but when it comes to people's politics -- it's open season with all kinds of wild things.

I've wondered some of the same things as you, and sometimes it seems as if the Republicans must be playing a running gag to see just how much they can get away with.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I didn't put the speech bubble in the tweeted version.

Oh! I wish you had!

He's a question for Dr. Carson... What if Being Gay is a Choice?

Which brings me to the second reason why the "Is being gay a choice?" question isn't central to the issue of gay rights. There are lots of behaviors that we judge to be acceptable or unacceptable even though we don't know their origin. I can't explain why people like basketball over football, but it's legal and it should be. Likewise, I can't explain why people like Ariel Castro kidnap (and apparently rape or even murder) people. I don't know if it's genetic or what, but I do know that it's illegal, as it ought to be.

I don't need to know the origin of behaviors like rape and serial murder in order to figure out whether they're right or wrong. All I need to know is whether they're harmful, and they clearly are. It might help to know their origin in order to figure out how to nip them in the bud, but no amount of information about the genesis of these behaviors is going to change my mind about whether they are morally acceptable.

When it comes to homosexuality, the real issue isn't where it comes from, but whether it's harmful. John Stuart Mill nicely sums things up: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That's one of the better arguments I've read BH. I usually use the Gov contract argument, but this is much better actually.

I'm stealing that for future use .

~Tenth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I didn't put the speech bubble in the tweeted version.

Oh! I wish you had!

He's a question for Dr. Carson... What if Being Gay is a Choice?

Which brings me to the second reason why the "Is being gay a choice?" question isn't central to the issue of gay rights. There are lots of behaviors that we judge to be acceptable or unacceptable even though we don't know their origin. I can't explain why people like basketball over football, but it's legal and it should be. Likewise, I can't explain why people like Ariel Castro kidnap (and apparently rape or even murder) people. I don't know if it's genetic or what, but I do know that it's illegal, as it ought to be.

I don't need to know the origin of behaviors like rape and serial murder in order to figure out whether they're right or wrong. All I need to know is whether they're harmful, and they clearly are. It might help to know their origin in order to figure out how to nip them in the bud, but no amount of information about the genesis of these behaviors is going to change my mind about whether they are morally acceptable.

When it comes to homosexuality, the real issue isn't where it comes from, but whether it's harmful. John Stuart Mill nicely sums things up: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

That last bit is very good. If only more on the left and right ascribed to that policy. Regrettably there are politicians on both sides of the isle who want to ban things just because they find them icky.

As for Carson, so what if he believes that homosexuality is a choice? The causes of homosexuality, nature vs nurture, are debated by many people in academia. Having that opinion, just in and of itself, does not mean that one is anti-gay or hates gays or will subscribe to anti-gay legislation.

I disagree more with his stance on gun control where he supported the idea of banning city dwellers from owning guns. That is a direct policy position that I can get my teeth into and dislike and is more solid than "where do gays come from."

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: grey580
It's like the republican party has become a real life onion parody of a party.

Do these guys site around smoking crack and writing down the craziest things they can think of?

How do they make up stuff like this?

What's baffling to me is how many supporters they have. It's as if logic and reason are alive and well all over the place, but when it comes to people's politics -- it's open season with all kinds of wild things.

I've wondered some of the same things as you, and sometimes it seems as if the Republicans must be playing a running gag to see just how much they can get away with.

GOP doesn't have supporters because they believe people choose gay in prison.

GOP has supporters because (historically) the GOP was (historically) for lower taxes and smaller government.

To point to just this one issue and paint all GOP that way, is just as valid as me calling all leftists commies because some want a totalitarian government.

its sardonically amusing how many god-fearing folk will turn to homosexuality when it suits their purposes.

prison is one of the foremost examples.

a reply to: beezzer

...Which is what a lot of people that support the GOP do (call leftists commies who want a totalitarian government).

The fact is, if you take either side of the political spectrum to far you get the same thing. It's either "The Corporation" that controls everything (including the government) -- or the government itself controlling everything.

a reply to: beezzer

GOP has supporters because (historically) the GOP was (historically) for lower taxes and smaller government.

There's the crux of the issue though right?

Historically, both political parties were....*insert comment here*.

But we have new breed of party these days. On both sides of the aisle. Now do I consider the GOP to be a bit crazier than the DNC? Sure I do, but that's my biased ideology.

Any GOP candidate could come up and sweet me off my feet at any moment. Actually Ron Paul did that for a few years until I found out he was insane.

~Tenth

It seems to me that he started off several years ago as a viable candidate who seemed to grasp at least some of the actual problems that exist today in our political system. As time goes by and he speaks more and more to the Conservative base that supports his possible candidacy he alters his message to meet their requirements or the system of belief they expect.

Not exactly someone who could be relied upon to be President, just another individual willing to say whatever to whomever to get elected. He has been on a string of stupidity lately, not a polished candidate for sure, he needs to just stop talking.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: beezzer

...Which is what a lot of people that support the GOP do (call leftists commies who want a totalitarian government).

I'll admit that I'm one of them, because it's funny to see the looks on their faces. All my in-laws and relatives are leftist-commies.

The fact is, if you take either side of the political spectrum to far you get the same thing. It's either "The Corporation" that controls everything (including the government) -- or the government itself controlling everything.

"Who will do a better job of leading the nation" should be the only concern.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Sarcasm is lost I guess.

Racist!

Fair enough. Let me put it this way... I don't know where Carson is from and I don't care, but if a bunch of liberals get together and start demanding to see Carson's REAL birth certificate, analyze it by layers on the internet, claim that he's adopted, a secret Muslim, decidedly un-American, is the anti-Christ, or Hitler, pals around with terrorists, or uses a fake social security number... I just might join you in your cries of racism.

originally posted by: beezzer

You make a point, only because of Obama's attack on the 2nd Amendment.

Yet even Obama's attacks have not totally disarmed America.

So even a rabid anti-gay president would have minimal impact, unless you are suggesting that Obama's anti-2nd stance is effective.

If our president's stance on the 2nd amendment is so ineffective, why do I hear the phrase "Obummer's takin' our guns!" all the time? Are you saying that a candidate's negative stance on the 2nd amendment wouldn't sway you as long as that person had a great idea for our budget? What if you were an ammosexual? Would it sway you then?

My point is that it's perfectly reasonable to place a value judgement on a person if their beliefs could have a direct impact on your life. It's what we all do. Would you vote for a Muslim who vocally supported the benefits of Shariah law?

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: rupertg
[like. pic]pu54f72bf7.jpg[/pic]

Deffinition:

Hypocrite

Climb the ladder then push it away fo others cant follow.

How exactly is he pushing it away? Also are those 12 things listed on the poster supposed to be Anti-Conservative?
REALITY CHECK: Most conservatives don't mind social welfare of any kind. It is the FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE we dont like. If he needed it, more power to him.

originally posted by: Cuervo
Would you vote for a Muslim who vocally supported the benefits of Shariah law?

You know very well I didn't vote for Obama.

Im no American, or know the system inside or out, but do Republicans purposely make themselves seem stupid then the competition?

originally posted by: Specimen
Im no American, or know the system inside or out, but do Republicans purposely make themselves seem stupid then the competition?

They don't do it on purpose.