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

A bit of a shame. I had to read this dude's autobiography about his career in neuroscience some years ago and he seemed like a decently well rounded guy, but I might remember things wrong

So Ben, why did you choose to be hetero? or black? or a total dimwit?

So, sexuality and taking it up the ass (unwillingly or willingly but in order to survive in prison) is now the same thing according to this guy.

[QUOTE=Technopath;47258721]So, sexuality and taking it up the ass (unwillingly or willingly but in order to survive in prison) is now the same thing according to this guy.[/QUOTE] well I mean, wanting to bang guys in the ass is [I]pretty [/I]gay, I mean, I'm pretty sure of that. but prison rape probably doesn't happen as much as people think / criminals probably hide it a lot more that they're already gay anyways. I mean, it's extremely serious, but people seem to joke about it happening as if it's somehow constantly happening all the time in every prison

[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] Listen, man, just fucking run for President already, okay? I don't even care if you'll turn out a dictator, you'll probably be a benevolent one.

[QUOTE=spiritlol;47256506]Is being dumb a choice? "Absolutely" says Ben Carson.[/QUOTE] In the same sense you can choose to procrastinate. It's a personality flaw. [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] [i](seeing people comment on what he says)[/i] As much as I would want to say that you're restating the obvious here, supposedly not everyone in the world seems to completely understand the picture. I'll give you props for that much, for whatever it changes on FP.

[QUOTE=Sableye;47258599]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[/QUOTE] Exactly! The middle of the road solution would be to strike the word "marriage" from a government perspective, and make everything "civil union", which covers everyone. Everyone would be equal and it would shut up the whole "redefining marriage" religious arguments. Kill 2 birds with one stone.

i agree that being gay is a choice you can make yourself like anything eg. acquired tastes i assure you it's possible to acquire the taste of dick

He's wrong you do chose to be black. [IMG]http://www.country933.com/files/Tan-Man.jpg[/IMG] If this guy did then they all did.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47259301]Exactly! The middle of the road solution would be to strike the word "marriage" from a government perspective, and make everything "civil union", which covers everyone. Everyone would be equal and it would shut up the whole "redefining marriage" religious arguments. Kill 2 birds with one stone.[/QUOTE] Except its never going to happen because there's the super-anti gay rights people who believe its against this countries non-exostent religious values and will say its gays destroying marriage as well as the people who believe they're somehow superior to gays and wouldn't stand for being equal to them , the middle who have traditional marriages who see their marriage as being simply tossed out, and the small fraction of gays that probably would be dissatisfied with not being able to marry traditionally Ya this is already what's happening but a middle road solution would be to just strike the religious connotation to marriage and be defined as a union between two consenting adults

[QUOTE=Sableye;47259430]Except its never going to happen because there's the super-anti gay rights people who believe its against this countries non-exostent religious values and will say its gays destroying marriage as well as the people who believe they're somehow superior to gays and wouldn't stand for being equal to them , the middle who have traditional marriages who see their marriage as being simply tossed out, and the small fraction of gays that probably would be dissatisfied with not being able to marry traditionally Ya this is already what's happening but a middle road solution would be to just strike the religious connotation to marriage and be defined as a union between two consenting adults[/QUOTE] You're going to have butthurt people no matter the outcome. I just think it would be an easier way. Religious people are fighting tooth and nail for the word "marriage", so let them have it. It's a word. Have the government look at everyone as equal with civil unions, and let the religious people parade around their "marriages" in their churches. By taking the word "marriage" out of the equation, not only do you disarm one of their arguments, but you'll most likely get most of them agreeing to it. This means a less painful and quicker way to resolve the problem for everyone.

[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] You know that the whole "marriage 2" thing is just so they would stop opposing "redefining marriage" right? Cause it says in their book from which they pick and chose that marriage is between man and a woman and they will oppose this shit to their graves. Legal marriage should just not be called marriage and it should be between two consenting adults. Let them have the word if they care so much that they would prevent other people from getting equal rights. Otherwise you're in for a long fight over a word while gay people are left without rights. And who are you to dictate who the church should be giving sacraments to? It's their religion with their rules. You can't demand from them to change THEIR rules. It's like demanding that a club for bald people should be also accepting long haired people. It makes no sense. They have made their rules and if you want to get something from them or be a member you have to meet their criteria. And I don't know how it's done in America but this is the first time I've heard about "religious rights guaranteed by the country" that you can demand from a church to give you marriage if you say you follow that religion. Can a pair muslims get a christian wedding this way too? Getting a religious wedding is not a basic right. Nor a right given by the country. At least where I live.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47257275]Gay men and women can still be Christian, and so, [b]under their religious rights guaranteed by the country[/b], 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] Wtf does a religious tradition have to do with any rights provided by the country/government ? If I didn't go to church, or take Religion as a class in school I wouldn't be able to get my sacraments. That's because someone in the Church said so, not because it's written in some government law. At least it's how it worked here. When my sister wanted to get married, her husband had to go trough the process of getting some sacrament(I don't know how it's called in English) because he didn't do it when he was younger, so they had to wait. What I want to say is religion and law shouldn't mix or try to change one another by "force". Christian wedding(jewish,muslim,etc) should be considered a tradition and government law shouldn't change it if the Church leaders are not interested in doing so themselves. And as a tradition it shouldn't legally give you more rights or be different than civil marriage/union.

My grandmother used to look up to him. I read the book. Was it all lies?

By the way, he issued an apology after that CNN interview and basically explained that while he does support gay rights and equality, he believes "marriage" is a religious institution. So basically his views on "gay marriage" are semantical. He also says he deeply regrets what he said and will always take responsibility if and when he makes an error in the future. I ain't mad at him. At least he's willing to own up to his mistakes and take responsibility. [url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/05/ben-carson-issues-apology-over-controversial-homosexuality-comments-we-are-all-made-in-gods-image/[/url]

BASED Carson

[QUOTE=proch;47256892]That really doesn't apply to doctors though, regardless of the article.[/QUOTE] So you think a neurosurgeon can cut his own hair?

Its just easier to say its not a choice. We actually don't know how that shit is decided even if we did identify the genes that produce certain sexuality we don't know how they interact and people with the gene could still turn out straight or another sexuality. So, its just easier to say its not a choice.

apparently he's trying to pull his ass out of the fire as fast as he can [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ben-carson-prisons-gay-choice/[/url] now he's going down the republican blame-list starting with Liberal Media, next will probably be Homosexual Agenda, followed by Obama [quote]In a radio interview with Sean Hannity, Carson then said he won't be talking about gay rights anymore "because every time I'm gaining momentum, [B]the liberal press says[/B], let's talk about gay rights -- and I'm just not going to fall for that anymore." [/quote] i'm curious as to how there's anything such as a liberal press when almost all of it is owned by Rupert Murdoch

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47263589]By the way, he issued an apology after that CNN interview and basically explained that while he does support gay rights and equality, he believes "marriage" is a religious institution. So basically his views on "gay marriage" are semantical. He also says he deeply regrets what he said and will always take responsibility if and when he makes an error in the future. I ain't mad at him. At least he's willing to own up to his mistakes and take responsibility. [url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/05/ben-carson-issues-apology-over-controversial-homosexuality-comments-we-are-all-made-in-gods-image/[/url][/QUOTE] I think that there's the widespread misconception that churches are forced to perform ceremonial marriages. Marriage isn't a ceremonial tradition restricted to churches anymore, they can obtain a marriage license in the court, so it's secular.