Neurosurgeon & GOP Presidential Candidate Ben Carson: Prison proves being gay is a choice - Polidicks

[QUOTE] Washington (CNN)Ben Carson says homosexuality is a choice because many people "go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay." The neurosurgeon and potential Republican candidate for president in 2016 made the comment in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo that aired Wednesday on "New Day." Asked whether being gay is a choice, Carson responded: "Absolutely." [IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150304065332-01-ben-carson-0304-medium-169.jpg[/IMG] Potential 2016 presidential candidates 17 photos EXPAND GALLERY "Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question," Carson said. That argument, Carson said, "thwarts" the notion that homosexuality isn't a choice, which is at odds with the majority of the medical community, including the [URL="http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx"]American Psychological Association[/URL], who says "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Slate's Mark Joseph Stern also o[URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/04/choose_to_be_gay_no_you_don_t.html"]utlined the scientific arguments [/URL]against this particular belief last year.Carson also said he believes the issue of allowing or restricting same-sex marriage should be decided on the state level, rather than by federal courts -- even as the Supreme Court prepares to take up a case this spring that could legalize gay marriage nationwide. He said it's possible to grant the legal rights that accompany marriage to same-sex couples -- or to any two people at all -- without applying the word "marriage" to their relationships. "Why do gay people want to get married? Why do they say they want to get married? Because they want to have various rights -- property rights, visitation rights," he said. "Why can't any two human beings, I don't care what their sexual orientation is, why can't they have the legal right to do those things? That does not require changing the definition of marriage."[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ben-carson-prisons-gay-choice/[/URL] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA4DxAZHLTU[/media]

I was just waiting for this guy to turn out to be a dimwit.

Guy's a neurosurgeon and he's this retarded? How is that even possible?

"Trust me, I've seen enough shows and films"

Shawshank Redemption is actually pushing for the Gay Agenda.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47256464]Guy's a neurosurgeon and he's this retarded? How is that even possible?[/QUOTE] Being incredibly smart in one field does not preclude you from being an absolute shithead in another. The only reason he got as much attention as he did in the first place was because he's republican and black.

Is being dumb a choice? "Absolutely" says Ben Carson.

I know a former Federal Prison warden who would beg to differ.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47256464]Guy's a neurosurgeon and he's this retarded? How is that even possible?[/QUOTE] Barbers can't cut their own hair

Ah shucks, those wacky republicans! *laugh track* Seriously, though, is every member of their party completely insane or mentally incompetent? Because they all seem to have styled themselves after a super-saturated Colbert, and I don't think that's possible.

[QUOTE=Pako;47256548]Barbers can't cut their own hair[/QUOTE] That really doesn't apply to doctors though, regardless of the article.

[QUOTE=proch;47256892]That really doesn't apply to doctors though, regardless of the article.[/QUOTE] If barbers can't cut their own hair why would a doctor be able to cut their own hair any better?

Alright, we'll just call any non-hetero marriages "Marriage 2", which will have exactly the same rights only a different name. Are ya happy now, Ben?

This is a presidential candidate? I might actually vote this year so I can vote against him.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47256464]Guy's a neurosurgeon and he's this retarded? How is that even possible?[/QUOTE] Stare into the void, the void looks back

I imagine that [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale]Kinsey scale[/url] must be fucking quantum mechanics to these people "What?! Not gay and gay at the same time?!! HOw is that even POSSIBLE"

Why would it even matter if it [I]were[/I] a choice? It's still a completely harmless and emotionally beneficial relationship between consenting adults. At what point does whether a person chooses a same-sex attraction or not come into play in a meaningful way? In what way does that somehow take an otherwise perfectly healthy and positive relationship and twist it into something that should be condemned? Regardless of choice, they have that attraction, and they seek out other people who also have that attraction. Together, they form personally beneficial relationships, same as any other couple. While religious texts may have something to say on the matter, I'd remind everyone that one of America's core tenants is the freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion. Your religious ideals are not everybody else's. Attempting to force people to live under [I]your[/I] religious tenants is nothing short of religious tyranny, which our founding documents state in pretty explicit terms should [I]never[/I] become reality. At best, attempting to use your governmental might to push a religious agenda is poisonous to the spirit of our country, and to attempt to argue the reverse, that allowing homosexuals to exist is somehow an attack on your religion and so homosexuals should be forced to submit to your vision of God's Will, is deeply hypocritical. Outside of a religious perspective, fighting to prevent homosexuals from enjoying the same privileges and rights as heterosexuals is pointlessly arbitrary. Homosexuality exists on an individual level, meaning it has little to no marginal impact on society at large. This isn't a zero sum game; a loss for the homosexual minority is not a win for the huge majority of people who are not personally affected by this kind of legislation. It's just a loss. Nobody wins, and homosexuals lose. How is that justifiable in any way?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47257111]Why would it even matter if it [I]were[/I] a choice? It's still a completely harmless and emotionally beneficial relationship between consenting adults. At what point does whether a person chooses a same-sex attraction or not come into play in a meaningful way? In what way does that somehow take an otherwise perfectly healthy and positive relationship and twist it into something that should be condemned? While religious texts may have something to say on the matter, I'd remind everyone that one of America's core tenants is the freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion. Your religious ideals are not everybody else's. Attempting to force people to live under [I]your[/I] religious tenants is nothing short of religious tyranny, which our founding documents state in pretty explicit terms should [I]never[/I] become reality. At best, attempting to use your governmental might to push a religious agenda is poisonous to the spirit of our country, and to attempt to argue the reverse, that allowing homosexuals to exist is somehow an attack on your religion and so homosexuals should be forced to submit to your vision of God's Will, is deeply hypocritical. Outside of a religious perspective, fighting to prevent homosexuals from enjoying the same privileges and rights as heterosexuals is pointlessly arbitrary. Homosexuality exists on an individual level, meaning it has little to no marginal impact on society at large. This isn't a zero sum game; a loss for the homosexual minority is not a win for the huge majority of people who are not personally affected by this kind of legislation. It's just a loss. Nobody wins, and homosexuals lose. How is that justifiable in any way?[/QUOTE] It's justifiable because people like to be offended, and politicians like to protect their voting base from being offended. That's really it. There is no sociological reason why homosexuality should be outlawed, no concerns of health or psychiatry. Nobody is in grave danger if some people are homosexual. It's entirely personal opinion on a grand scale. It also acts as a Macguffin to distract the public from the massive issues our government actually faces, like systemic racism, political corruption, power creep, and congressional gridlock. It's a mirror conveniently placed in front of a box of bees.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47257111]Woahtext[/QUOTE] That's a perfectly reasonable set of arguments that nobody who isn't already convinced will listen to, sadly.

[QUOTE=Mudkipslol;47256938]Alright, we'll just call any non-hetero marriages "Marriage 2", which will have exactly the same rights only a different name. Are ya happy now, Ben?[/QUOTE] That's insinuating that gay marriage has a higher number value than the heterosexual matrimony given to us bY THE LORD JESUS

[QUOTE=Mudkipslol;47256938]Alright, we'll just call any non-hetero marriages "Marriage 2", which will have exactly the same rights only a different name. Are ya happy now, Ben?[/QUOTE] It's sad, but this is exactly what many bigots (typically those who consider themselves fair and progressive, despite their bigotry) often argue should happen. [I]"Oh, I'm not opposed to gays being together. They should be able to be gay, and have all the normal spousal rights as straight people, sure. I just don't think it should be called marriage, or that they should be allowed to have weddings done by the church, because marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is for Christians, and homosexuality is a sin."[/I] That might be mildly better than "homosexuality should not allowed to exist, period." At least it addresses some of the more basic injustices by the system. If they're allowed full spousal privileges, including inheritance and whatnot, then that is a step in the right direction. However, it's still not fair. It's still an assault on their basic rights. Gay men and women can still be Christian, and so, under their religious rights guaranteed by the country, they should be allowed to have a Christian wedding, if they so desire, and there should be no reason whatsoever why they can't be Married, in both a legal [I]and[/I] a traditional sense.

lemme stop being gay oh wait

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47257111]Why would it even matter if it [I]were[/I] a choice? It's still a completely harmless and emotionally beneficial relationship between consenting adults. At what point does whether a person chooses a same-sex attraction or not come into play in a meaningful way? In what way does that somehow take an otherwise perfectly healthy and positive relationship and twist it into something that should be condemned? Regardless of choice, they have that attraction, and they seek out other people who also have that attraction. Together, they form personally beneficial relationships, same as any other couple. While religious texts may have something to say on the matter, I'd remind everyone that one of America's core tenants is the freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion. Your religious ideals are not everybody else's. Attempting to force people to live under [I]your[/I] religious tenants is nothing short of religious tyranny, which our founding documents state in pretty explicit terms should [I]never[/I] become reality. At best, attempting to use your governmental might to push a religious agenda is poisonous to the spirit of our country, and to attempt to argue the reverse, that allowing homosexuals to exist is somehow an attack on your religion and so homosexuals should be forced to submit to your vision of God's Will, is deeply hypocritical. Outside of a religious perspective, fighting to prevent homosexuals from enjoying the same privileges and rights as heterosexuals is pointlessly arbitrary. Homosexuality exists on an individual level, meaning it has little to no marginal impact on society at large. This isn't a zero sum game; a loss for the homosexual minority is not a win for the huge majority of people who are not personally affected by this kind of legislation. It's just a loss. Nobody wins, and homosexuals lose. How is that justifiable in any way?[/QUOTE] This needs to be quoted, laid in stone, and circulated as a perfect argument against homophobia. Couldn't have said it better myself, fine sir.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47257275]It's sad, but this is exactly what many bigots (typically those who consider themselves fair and progressive, despite their bigotry) often argue should happen. [I]"Oh, I'm not opposed to gays being together. They should be able to be gay, and have all the normal spousal rights as straight people, sure. I just don't think it should be called marriage, or that they should be allowed to have weddings done by the church, because marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is for Christians, and homosexuality is a sin."[/I] That might be mildly better than "homosexuality should not allowed to exist, period." At least it addresses some of the more basic injustices by the system. If they're allowed full spousal privileges, including inheritance and whatnot, then that is a step in the right direction. However, it's still not fair. It's still an assault on their basic rights. Gay men and women can still be Christian, and so, under their religious rights guaranteed by the country, they should be allowed to have a Christian wedding, if they so desire, and there should be no reason whatsoever why they can't be Married, in both a legal [I]and[/I] a traditional sense.[/QUOTE] It's all about the name to a lot of them. You could re-name "marriage certificates" to "union certificates" and a lot of them wouldn't care as far as the state, rights, etc... is concerned. They see "marriage" as a religious institution and their religion says that homosexuals can't get married. I'll put it to you this way. They care about the religious part of the word marriage whereas gay marriage supporters care about the law aspects of it. Now there are a few people who are bass-ackwards and don't want it because they don't want gays to adopt, etc., but this is truly a minority. As for your Christian wedding aspect, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. Even if you're straight, there is no guarantee that the priest will allow you to have a "Christian Wedding". It's all at the priest's discretion. While you are guaranteed the right to practice whatever religion you desire, you don't have the right to demand a religion's services. I can practice Christianity all I want, but that doesn't mean that the church has to recognize me as part of their congregation.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47256464]Guy's a neurosurgeon and he's this retarded? How is that even possible?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]potential Republican candidate for president in 2016 [/QUOTE] you assume stupidity, but he is probably doing this on purpose to get support.

First time I heard of this guy and it's enough to know he won't make it.

i still believe sexual tendencies are a choice, or at the very least are grounded in your experiences and not your genes (this is mostly because I believe personalities are from the world and not from who you're born from, and if you like dick or boobs or both is just a part of your personality,) but that doesn't make it right to try and convert people to or from certain viewpoints. that's just being a terrible person. basically what BDA said.

Oh man this is that herman cain shit all over again [img]http://i.imgur.com/0yE0fcu.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Gamerman12;47257999]i still believe sexual tendencies are a choice, or at the very least are grounded in your experiences and not your genes (this is mostly because I believe personalities are from the world and not from who you're born from, and if you like dick or boobs or both is just a part of your personality,) but that doesn't make it right to try and convert people to or from certain viewpoints. that's just being a terrible person. basically what BDA said.[/QUOTE] This is just based off of a personal observation of mine, but I've noticed there are a lot of "gay" people within my own circle of acquaintances who have suffered traumas, usually sexual, of some sort in their lives; they were molested at a young age by a parent or guardian or some family member, raped, beaten and tortured, etc. Some of them don't even know how to describe their sexual feelings, that's how messed up they are. I genuinely believe that there are people who are just born gay, but I think some people who describe themselves as gay are actually confused about their orientation-- for whatever reason. And then there's some who say they are just to be different from everyone else and feel special. As far as what influences a person's personality is concerned however, a lot of doctors and scientists are revising their positions that it's nurture and not nature that determines your personality. Studies done on twins, both identical and non-identical, have shown that "character" (as in a person's sense of themselves, their social and learning abilities and emotional intelligence, and so on) is apparently determined more by genetics than environment, but that's not to say environment has no effect at all (of course it does). The debate goes on concerning the range that this is true for, but what's becoming more clear as we continue to study it that genetics have more of an effect than environment does. Why that's so hard for many people to accept, I have no idea. This is a very politicized subject, so that probably has a lot to do with it; once you admit genes and biological factors have a heavier hand in determining this shit than environmental circumstances do, then a clusterfuck of arguing over things like race behavior and gender behavior happens, and that always ends badly. But we've known for years now that genetics do control your personality just where mental illnesses and disorders such as depression and anxiety are concerned to such an extent where some people are more predisposed than others to suffer from them, and resistance mechanisms also appear to be genetic too; some people are more resilient where this stuff is concerned than others are. This stuff is interesting, and I'm getting off-track. I'll just say check out lectures and research on this topic more. I was watching a Big Think talk this morning on the link between genius and mental disorders that mentioned the genetic component and biological constraints; [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TJNYnKsSK8]check it out[/url].

Isn't prison more akin to the temporary sexual relationships that typically form in exploration groups and stranded people. Its not really a choice its more of a coping mechanism, these people don't stay gay outside of prison (unless they really are gay) they are isolated in the artificial environment of prison [editline]4th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47257844]It's all about the name to a lot of them. You could re-name "marriage certificates" to "union certificates" and a lot of them wouldn't care as far as the state, rights, etc... is concerned. They see "marriage" as a religious institution and their religion says that homosexuals can't get married. I'll put it to you this way. They care about the religious part of the word marriage whereas gay marriage supporters care about the law aspects of it. Now there are a few people who are bass-ackwards and don't want it because they don't want gays to adopt, etc., but this is truly a minority. As for your Christian wedding aspect, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. Even if you're straight, there is no guarantee that the priest will allow you to have a "Christian Wedding". It's all at the priest's discretion. While you are guaranteed the right to practice whatever religion you desire, you don't have the right to demand a religion's services. I can practice Christianity all I want, but that doesn't mean that the church has to recognize me as part of their congregation.[/QUOTE] Ya pretty much a semantically argument, if marriages and civil unions were actually equal (they aren't) then there would be a need for gay marriage and it could stay as a religious institution while everyone who is legally married are just in a civil union. Instead of changing the religious context idiots came up with a second class of union to toss a carrot at the gays and still stick it to them