Ben Carson: Prisons prove being gay is a choice

No one is forced to have/get a licensed marriage. That is choice.

But, the fact it is a government contract ---- it must be for all.

Marriage by Biblical Covenant Not State License How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God follow Him... 1 Kings 18:21. www.truthinliving.org...

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Isn't this guy going to run for POTUS or something?

I just told my son about this and his response was " oh yeah, cause the American Prison System is the leading source of scientific research regarding homosexuality".

Baha.

~Tenth

So you have a son? So you chose to have hetero sex to produce a child or is this an In Vitro fertilization thing or adoption? Step-son? Just curious about this statement.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Doing away with "government" marriage is a completely different argument.

What we have right now is an Equal Rights issue.

Carson is at least partially correct. Men that go into prison straight and emerge gay does prove that all homosexuality is not a result of being born with the 'gay gene'. Some men may find they like it, others may become gay because of psychological issues of being raped, raping, submission, power, etc. In all these type cases it is not because they were born that way.

Doesn't mean that some people aren't born that way, but I do think that it invalidates the whole automatic 'we were born this way response'. I think that for gays to be truly honest with themselves they would seek out some counseling to ensure that it is not some psychological hang up rather than heredity which is causing them to make these significant life choices. To make the heredity claims without doing so is not being honest with themselves. Just so you all know, i am fine if someone decides they like gay sex and gay relationships for whatever reason, just don't always put it down as something that it out of their control.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I think the error is that people want to find "the single cause" for things when most things in life are usually the result of many factors from genetics to environment to chemical/hormonal influences to developmental issues.

Can't believe I was the first to give you a star for that.

Any person can say they were born gay. They may even truly believe so.

Me, I was born to be a judgmental jackass. Self-fulfilling prophecy? Just the way I am? Or the result of many combined factors including genetics and environment?

gay isnt a choice exactly the same way being dumb is not a choice - both points proved excellently here.

Whatever the opinion, some homosexuals will always be angry...

If I imply that it's genetic, some won't be happy and say that it's a choice,
If I imply that it's a choice, some won't be happy because they say it's genetic.

I never heard of Ben Carson before today, so I'm not too sure what to think of him anyway.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: NavyDoc

Doing away with "government" marriage is a completely different argument.

What we have right now is an Equal Rights issue.

How is his opinion that something is chosen rather than genetic a violation of equal rights?

Is the answer to solving an equal rights problem creating more of the same or is it moving away from the traditional paradigm?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Society loves it some paradigms.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Metallicus
Why do inmates often choose to participate in homosexuality in prison?

Maybe because it's their only option?

But that would make it a choice then? If your only option (not only, masturbation has been invented for a long time, LOL) is to choose to engage in homosexual behavior, wouldn't that indicate that, at least in some cases, homosexual behavior is a choice?

he has a point ya know

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: NavyDoc

Doing away with "government" marriage is a completely different argument.

What we have right now is an Equal Rights issue.

How is his opinion that something is chosen rather than genetic a violation of equal rights?

Is that what I said?

Is the answer to solving an equal rights problem creating more of the same or is it moving away from the traditional paradigm?

Is equal rights changing anything? Or just making sure all are included?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Well, to get down to it, the government should get out of marriage altogether. Every consenting adult should be able to engage in whatever contractual obligation they choose and the state's only role should be to maintain neutral and objective courts to mediate civil disputes between the citizens in question.

But what you've described is pretty much what is now happening. We've had prenuptial agreements for how long now?
It was the religious annexation of marriage which caused this problem to begin with, the notion that they could dictate who was permitted to marry based on their own specific beliefs, which they claimed the entire society should adhere to.

The only difference between marriage and any other legally binding contract is that the state uses this contract to assert other laws.

For example, how does the state decide who has parental rights?
How does the state decide who is granted default ownership of property after death?
What contract does the state use to assign the rights to individuals and/or partners?
How does a state define who is eligible for benefits as a recognized partner?

Marriage is inexplicably involved in the decisions of the state, in so many areas of life, that there was no other path to take. Removing the state from recognizing and responding to marriage would then require the rewriting of thousands of other laws, which would then open up another minefield of political meddling.

I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but it seems this is what we now have anyway.

The state needs to recognize marriage for so many other reasons, and this specific contract allows the state to administer to the people. It's entirely sensible that marriage simply be extended to all couples, rather than revoking all those rights and benefits from all couples, or attempting to deal with rights and benefits on a contract-by-contract basis.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

No. The sex drive in the male human is not as black/white as society makes it look. Will say there is a difference between circumstancial and nature/god/what-have-you given personal sexuality.
In a free and equal society it shouldn't be a problem to accept some find the male pheromones more attractive than the females odours. It just is like in the old saying: the heart wants what the heart wants. Or the nose is pointing at. And things get icky when you confuse the "cock" with the hen(read heart).

I wouldn't say prove, but it is a fact in prison heterosexuals have consensual same sex relations.

It does happen.

I think sexuality is a very dynamic thing. When we're talking about behavior, we can't fully pinpoint genetics as a cause, nor can we say any one experience is the cause of an ongoing behavior, belief system, and so forth. There are people who, for whatever set of reasons, lean more one way or another, with the extremes putting it all to choice or all to innate disposition.

I tend to see all ways of looking at this as holding a degree of validity. Sexuality appears to be a bit of a spectrum, with most people not being towards extremes of homosexuality, or heterosexuality (there are more than two dimensions here, but let's keep it simple). If this is so, then it would seem many would have a degree of malleability in how their circumstances shaped their choices.

Basically I'm saying is that while on the surface a given percentage of inmate boofing might be played off as about a power thing it could be a place to express aspects of one's self not taken elsewhere. It could also be a chance to experience something you believed yourself to be disgusted with under the pressures of society, but in confinement found more pleasure than disgust. I look to a variety of scenarios, with prior histories, current circumstances, degrees of self-awareness, and such... and realize this is far too complex to sum it up in any one way.

What is certain to me is that this doctors assessment is not too well thought out. There's glaring holes in the reasoning. So too is the "homosexuality is a choice", or "homosexuality is innate" discussions. At what point are you a homosexual? At what point are you heterosexual? Based on my observations and experiences, few are truly entirely one way or another.

I wear a dress on occasion, find some guys cute, prefer snatch, and date based on how I see us bettering one another. Why limit myself? No need for a label.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Well, to get down to it, the government should get out of marriage altogether. Every consenting adult should be able to engage in whatever contractual obligation they choose and the state's only role should be to maintain neutral and objective courts to mediate civil disputes between the citizens in question.

But what you've described is pretty much what is now happening. We've had prenuptial agreements for how long now?
It was the religious annexation of marriage which caused this problem to begin with, the notion that they could dictate who was permitted to marry based on their own specific beliefs, which they claimed the entire society should adhere to.

The only difference between marriage and any other legally binding contract is that the state uses this contract to assert other laws.

For example, how does the state decide who has parental rights?
How does the state decide who is granted default ownership of property after death?
What contract does the state use to assign the rights to individuals and/or partners?
How does a state define who is eligible for benefits as a recognized partner?

Marriage is inexplicably involved in the decisions of the state, in so many areas of life, that there was no other path to take. Removing the state from recognizing and responding to marriage would then require the rewriting of thousands of other laws, which would then open up another minefield of political meddling.

I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but it seems this is what we now have anyway.

The state needs to recognize marriage for so many other reasons, and this specific contract allows the state to administer to the people. It's entirely sensible that marriage simply be extended to all couples, rather than revoking all those rights and benefits from all couples, or attempting to deal with rights and benefits on a contract-by-contract basis.

But what laws would need re-writing. We already have dealt with parental rights dealing with unmarried couples and even parents that were just one night stands and didn't even know each other when conception took place.

Want to have community property? Put it in writing.
Want to have hospital visitation rights or medial power of attorney? Put it in writing.
Want to have rights of inheritance? Put it in writing.

It seems illogical to me to put a large amount of responsibilities and obligations on someone and grant them all of these rights and considerations based on a 15 minute ceremony.

The only down side to this I can see is giving lawyers more work but at least they'll have something other to do than chasing ambulances.

Let's take a look at the Greeks, regarding the open sexual relationships between men and boys, were the married men who engaged in such relationships gay?

Or did they not see a distinction between gay or straight?

a reply to: Stormdancer777

The greeks said the only true love is to be found between two men.
Woman were there to give birth, some enjoyed the ladies more, but learned the ways of love from an early age from men.
So there were gay guys, straight guys and both groups #ed eachother and their women.

I thought this was interesting

en.wikipedia.org...

Love between adult men[edit]
Given the importance in Greek society of cultivating the masculinity of the adult male and the perceived feminizing effect of being the passive partner, relations between adult men of comparable social status were considered highly problematic, and usually associated with social stigma. This stigma, however, was reserved for only the passive partner in the relationship. According to contemporary opinion, Greek males who engaged in passive homosexuality after reaching the age of manhood - at which point they were the expected to take the reverse role in pederastic relationships and become the active and dominant member - thereby were feminized or "made a woman" of themselves. There is ample evidence in the theater of Aristophanes that derides these passive homosexuals and gives a glimpse of the type of biting social opprobrium and shame ("atimia") heaped upon them by their society.

How stupid. Put a bunch of men in a cage and all boundaries are gone. It's not the most suitable environment to pose such an ignorant statement.