Ben Carson: Being Gay Is A Choice Because Of Prison Sex [VIDEO]

[enhanced_deficit]

Way to go.

Ben Carson: Being Gay Is A Choice Because Of Prison Sex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_MqgeoD5Y

 

[sparebulb]

Insert Mr. Herman Cain CEO creepy homo psycho gif here.

Mr. Ben Carson MD's half-life is expiring more quickly than expected.

He needs to receive a new set of talking points from his handlers if he wants to make it to the quarter-finals.

 

[thoughtomator]

it's quite true, but it's also incredibly poor politics to say so

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[juleswin]

And humans are not by nature omnivores and are instead cannibalistic because when they are stranded in a area without food, they resort to eating each other. For a neuro surgeon, this man doesn't seem to be very smart. He thinks and talks slowly. I think he should go back to medicine, politics is not his forte.

 

[Crashland]

Ben Carson apologizes for comments on gay people

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson apologized for commenting Wednesday that prisoners' changes after they leave jail proves being gay is a choice, but said that the science is still murky on the issue.In a statement, Carson said he "realized that my choice of language does not reflect fully my heart on gay issues."
"I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended," he added.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ben-carson-prisons-gay-choice/

Welcome to politics, Ben!

 

[Sola_Fide]

Ben Carson apologizes for comments on gay people

More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ben-carson-prisons-gay-choice/

Welcome to politics, Ben!

I'm waiting for a Christian Liberty candidate who on the one hand passionately condemns homosexuality, and on the other hand passionately contends for freedom. When this happens, politics will change in this country.

This is just politically correct garbage.

 

[sparebulb]

I would have respected Mr. Ben Carson MD a bit more if he would not have recanted in such a overly-patronizing manner.

He is not ready for prime time.

He should have entered the public sphere by running for his local school board, city council, or cemetery board before being soiled and discarded by the establishment.

Hell, he might have been a very good choice for Sturgeon General.

 

[thoughtomator]

And humans are not by nature omnivores and are instead cannibalistic because when they are stranded in a area without food, they resort to eating each other. For a neuro surgeon, this man doesn't seem to be very smart. He thinks and talks slowly. I think he should go back to medicine, politics is not his forte.

Bad analogy, cannibals are a subset of omnivores, whereas homosexuals are not a subset of heterosexuals.

Carson's argument is easily defended: if homosexuality is genetic then the incidence thereof should not change according to circumstances. However, since we know that it does - thanks to observed prison behavior - homosexuality cannot be solely genetic (and may not be genetic at all), so there must be other, non-genetic factors involved, factors which must necessarily include an element of human choice.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

Bad analogy, cannibals are a subset of omnivores, whereas homosexuals are not a subset of heterosexuals.

Carson's argument is easily defended: if homosexuality is genetic then the incidence thereof should not change according to circumstances. However, since we know that it does - thanks to observed prison behavior - homosexuality cannot be solely genetic (and may not be genetic at all), so there must be other, non-genetic factors involved, factors which must necessarily include an element of human choice.

Eh. I don't know if it's genetic or not, but it's certainly not a "choice". I believe some may be genetically/inherently more prone to it than others, while other external factors such as the nature of one's upbringing and social experiences can also have an impact. I also believe some are prone to it (more than you'd think) but don't have an event that makes them realize it until a certain point, if at all... But to say it's just a behavioral decision is ridiculous and couldn't be farther from the truth. Nobody chooses who they're attracted to. It just is what it is.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Carson would have been fine if he just focused on supporting equal contractual rights for both straights and gays. But he didn't.

This guy flat out sucks and I don't know why so many people here want to treat him with kid gloves and pretend that he's "learning" and that he'll eventually "come around" to libertarianism.

 

[thoughtomator]

Nobody chooses who they're attracted to.

We're not talking about attraction, we're talking about sexual behavior. Two different things. "Attraction" is entirely in the mind of the beholder, whereas sexual activity can be objectively measured.

I know people who confess attraction to both men and women, but engage in sexual behavior with only one gender and never the other. Attraction is not the issue, it's not even close to the issue. Hell, I'm attracted to all sorts of women but would only consider sexual behavior with a subset of them that meets additional qualifications (e.g. not married, and of legal age).

Attraction is not compulsion, and equating the two is a canard that serves only to confuse the issue, at the service of those who wish to see the issue confused.

 

[Dianne]

Damn, I thought he would be a good VP prospect but no more.

 

[William Tell]

it's quite true, but it's also incredibly poor politics to say so

Exactly.

Welcome to politics, Ben!

Indeed, he was too honest.

 

[Crashland]

We're not talking about attraction, we're talking about sexual behavior. Two different things. "Attraction" is entirely in the mind of the beholder, whereas sexual activity can be objectively measured.

I know people who confess attraction to both men and women, but engage in sexual behavior with only one gender and never the other. Attraction is not the issue, it's not even close to the issue. Hell, I'm attracted to all sorts of women but would only consider sexual behavior with a subset of them that meets additional qualifications (e.g. not married, and of legal age).

Attraction is not compulsion, and equating the two is a canard that serves only to confuse the issue, at the service of those who wish to see the issue confused.

You've just illustrated the problem. What most people mean when they say someone is "gay" is that they have a certain sexual orientation. Sexual orientation means which gender you are attracted to, not which gender you perform sexual acts with. This is why gay people get so offended, and rightly so, when people claim that being gay is somehow a choice.

 

[jmdrake]

it's quite true, but it's also incredibly poor politics to say so

I bet it plays well in Iowa.

 

[thoughtomator]

You've just illustrated the problem. What most people mean when they say someone is "gay" is that they have a certain sexual orientation. Sexual orientation means which gender you are attracted to, not which gender you perform sexual acts with. This is why gay people get so offended, and rightly so, when people claim that being gay is somehow a choice.

They can be as offended as they damn please if they're that determined to manufacture offense out of thin air by changing the meaning of language. Being homosexual is not about who you are attracted to, it's about who you actually have sex with. Hence, prison homosexuals who immediately go back to being straight once they are free.

Having sex with someone, unless you are being raped, is a choice. There's no getting around that. Pretending it is not a choice is not a convincing argument, its a rationale to escape responsibility for one's own actions. Trying to make it a mental orientation rather than a physical one is a fallacy designed to inflate the actual numbers of homosexuals and by extension their political importance.

 

[jmdrake]

Bad analogy, cannibals are a subset of omnivores, whereas homosexuals are not a subset of heterosexuals.

Carson's argument is easily defended: if homosexuality is genetic then the incidence thereof should not change according to circumstances. However, since we know that it does - thanks to observed prison behavior - homosexuality cannot be solely genetic (and may not be genetic at all), so there must be other, non-genetic factors involved, factors which must necessarily include an element of human choice.

It's interesting that there are straight people who get all bent out o shape butt hurt over even the hint of a suggestion that being gay might be a choice when there are gay people who revel in the "fact" that it is a choice.

http://queerbychoice.com

And we had a thread here recently of a mom who proudly proclaims that she choose to be a lesbian and wants her daughter to make the same choice.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ant-my-kid-to-be-gay-too&highlight=sally+kohn

I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too.

Many of my straight friends, even the most liberal, see this logic as warped. It’s one thing for them to admit that they would prefer their kids to be straight, something they’ll only begrudgingly confess. But wanting my daughter to be a lesbian? I might as well say I want her to grow up to be lactose intolerant.

“Don’t you want her to be happy?” one friend asked. Perhaps he just meant that it’s easier to be straight in a homophobic culture. But this attitude complies with, even reinforces, that culture in the first place. A less-charitable interpretation is that he thinks being straight is superior. When I was a teenager, my father cautioned me against marrying a black person. “I’m just trying to protect you,” he said. But it was impossible to know whether he meant to insulate me from the world’s bias or implicitly rationalize his own.

The idea that no one would choose to be gay is widely held — even in the gay rights movement. In the early ’90s, partly as a response to the destructive notion that gay people could be changed, activists pressed the idea of sexuality as a fixed, innate state. Scientists even tried to prove that there’s a “gay gene.” These concepts about sexual orientation helped justify the case for legal protections. The idea that folks are “born gay” became not only the theme of a Lady Gaga song, but the implicit rationale for gay rights.

Not a fan of Sally Kohn but I appreciate her honesty. Whether sexuality is fixed or not, the sad truth is that the believe that it is fixed is driven more by cynical politics than anything else. That said, this is America and people can choose to be whatever they want. There is no need to force an unproven belief on the rest of society just to respect someone else's right to be different.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

We're not talking about attraction, we're talking about sexual behavior. Two different things. "Attraction" is entirely in the mind of the beholder, whereas sexual activity can be objectively measured.

I know people who confess attraction to both men and women, but engage in sexual behavior with only one gender and never the other. Attraction is not the issue, it's not even close to the issue. Hell, I'm attracted to all sorts of women but would only consider sexual behavior with a subset of them that meets additional qualifications (e.g. not married, and of legal age).

Attraction is not compulsion, and equating the two is a canard that serves only to confuse the issue, at the service of those who wish to see the issue confused.

That doesn't make any sense. You aren't going to engage in sexual behaviors with someone unless you're attracted to them. And you're going to seek out such behaviors with those you're attracted to. Some suppress it, but that in itself is a behavior. If someone is attracted to both men and women, then they are bisexual. That isn't a choice either. You don't choose to be homosexual lol. Of course a sexual act with anyone is a "choice". If you're straight and choose to engage in sexual acts with the opposite sex, that would be a choice. But being homosexual or heterosexual or somewhere in between isn't.

 

[jmdrake]

You aren't going to engage in sexual behaviors with someone unless you're attracted to them.

You've never had sex with an ugly woman?