Ben Carson says prison proves being gay is a choice.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blader said:
Because it's not irrelevant. The idea that homosexuality can be chosen opens a loophole for the anti-gay crowd, who can always fire back, "Well, just don't be gay. Problem solved!"

I mean, it's also incredibly insulting (see: Rick Perry's comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism) and completely unscientific, but it's also an off-ramp for people opposed to gay rights to rationalize their opposition.
Click to expand...
I understand the pragmatism behind it, but I think the bigoted side of the argument is being lent needless credence by drawing the line only there, when it should be drawn a lot sooner. Even if people chose to be gay, there would still be nothing to reasonably take umbrage with. "Don't be gay" shouldn't be met with a "Sorry, (s)he can't help it". The response ideally should be "What for?" or a "This is none of your business, thanks". The "born this way" angle just seems to lead back to people accepting that people may be born with certain attractions, but shouldn't act on their feelings. This is how people perceive paedophiles as well, which is not an association that you want to be grouped in with. This sort of ties into your alcoholism example, albeit even a bit more loaded.

Finally as a straight man I am perfectly able to choose whether or not I make "gay" comments, and there should be nothing wrong with that either. Sometimes Mark Ruffalo wears glasses and and I choose to point out that the guy really rocks that look. Grow up and let go of this insecure baggage, society.
 
Earthpainting said:
Who gives a shit? Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Respect people's personal lives if they are not harming anyone. Especially if they don't even affect your life in even the slightest way. The only times I see this being brought up is when homosexual people have to be excused for being gay, which is pretty insulting. The "born this way" then comes off as an apology for something that doesn't need one. I don't blame gay people for doing it, when society applies pressure to do it, but I don't think we should be dignifying this angle as much as we do.
Click to expand...

It matters because we're typically more forgiving of (perceived) faults if they were not chosen.

If you are uneducated because you are lazy and didn't work hard in school, people have less sympathy for you than if you were simply born with significant mental disabilities.

Now, we can make another argument that homosexuality is not a fault, but that's not an argument that religious people are likely to listen to.
 
I had a friend who said that gay people chose to be gay.

I then questioned her intelligence, asked her about it, and when she couldn't answer why she was like 'Dr-drop it ok!'.

I hate idiots like that.
 
nullref said:
Yeah, I've never loved the "it's not a choice/born that way" argument. I'm sure it's generally true, and I certainly get why it's resorted to, from a tactical standpoint – but you're implicitly granting that it's acceptable to persecute people for their (harmless, private) choices.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think it's an important distinction for a lot of reason. Firstly, it's the only way you can put it on equal level with heterosexuality: if it's just a choice, it basically ends up in the fetish territory (which is where psychiatry relegated it to for decades). Secondly, it being an innate trait gives it legal protection on the level with race and sex. It doesn't get that level of protection if it's a choice because the law somewhat assumes that discrimination based on a choice is less severe than discrimination based on something you can't change your mind about if the going gets too tough. True, other choices - like religion or political beliefs - are protected in a similar way but not to the same degree. Compare same-sex marriage to FLDS polygamy. Thirdly, it shuts the door to any attempt at "treating" homosexuality through therapy, upbringing or social engineering.

Basically, cementing it as biological is the only way to truly normalize it rather than presenting it as something that's just down to an individual making a choice that may or may not be in their best interest. It's a very important distinction.
 
nomster said:
Ben Carson proves that you don't have to be intelligent to get through medical school
Click to expand...

On the contrary. He is a brilliant man.

He proves how fucked up kids can become when they have undeveloped people as parents. He is pretty much parroting the views no doubt fed to him by that mother of his. Clarence Thomas is the same way parroting sharecropping plantation ethics given to him as a kid from the children of slaves. Even watching his gifted hands film. Nothing was more depressing than seeing a kid with a slight temper pray to "De LAWD" to take that "Savage, savage, urge of anger" from him. Seems to me he needed a father to tell him to STFU, and he would be a much more grounded person today.

This type of mindset will be gone this century though. I went to see Dr.Carson speak in Atlanta last year and the vast, vast, majority of people there were super old.
 
Keep on being Ben Carson, Ben Carson. I really, really, really hope that someone other than Jeb, Walker, or Christie
the last two are longshots in my mind
gets the Republican nomination. I would love to see ultra conservative heads explode when Hillary won the general in a landslide.
 
MaddenNFL64 said:
Dude is a neurosurgeon, and yet dumb as all fuck in everything else. Don't get it.
Click to expand...
People have some incredible knowledge in certain areas of life. But it's extremely limited beyond that.


Some people have photographic memories, or can tell you any word on any page of a certain book.

But in terms of other metrics of intelligence, they may fall short.

Ben Carson is only given credibility because, "look he's one of the good blacks!" and look "he's really smart, too!"

In terms of what he's saying, I'm sure even the leaders of the GOP are finding it hard to support him.
 
The malleability of human sexuality can only be determined empirically. The potential normative implications of any empirical finding should only be another reason to keep our minds open and biases checked. Unfortunately, I realize that this is being way too idealistic...
 
Neuroscientists rolling their eyes at the stupid claims of a neurosurgeon :D

The american right is debating whether beeing gay is choice or not while neuroscientists are debating whether such a thing as "free will" can exist in the first place because the way our brain works doesn't leave room for "freedom".
Goes to show you how detached some people are from science, even when they're working in a similar field.
 
BreezyLimbo said:
I had a friend who said that gay people chose to be gay.

I then questioned her intelligence, asked her about it, and when she couldn't answer why she was like 'Dr-drop it ok!'.

I hate idiots like that.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that many people don't take time to actually think and question their stances.

Sounds like your friend could be shown the light if you were patient.
Some people just have opinions and thoughts and aren't exactly ready for some all out debate.
Rather than her making some rationalization so as to make sense of her religion, she might just have made a quick opinion based upon some quick life experiences.
 
1.21Gigawatts said:
Neuroscientists rolling their eyes at the stupid claims of a neurosurgeon :D

The american right is debating whether beeing gay is choice or not while neuroscientists are debating whether such a thing as "free will" can exist in the first place because the way our brain works doesn't leave room for "freedom".
Goes to show you how detached some people are from science, even when they're working in a similar field.
Click to expand...

If one were to "steel man" Carlson's argument, then you could say the debate is about the malleability of human sexuality, which does not take any stand on free will, not even implicitly...
 
I can see the argument now:

If people who never committed a homosexual act until prison could change, then just imagine how we could correct them with the right support system!
 
The simple act of having sex doesn't automatically mean you are gay. A lot of men who are gay will have had sex successfully with women in their early days.
 
Kyzer said:
I always think it's such a weird question. How would anyone know, even gay people? I know there's a more acceptable answer but really even if you're gay its hard to believe you would know why, and on top of that, why would the answer be binary like that? Not everyone is the same some people may have made the choice too
Click to expand...

Err if it is a conscious choice then how wouldn't people know?

When you go to an ice cream store and choose a flavor of ice cream are you telling me that you just get some flavor handed to you and are like "oh huh wait did I choose this I cant remembr"?
 
Sexuality is a complex issue. Prison rape is a complex issue. Sexual Identity with regards with it being a choice or that you are born with it is a false dichotomy.

Ben Carson is a very smart man and can be a very inspirational orator. I'm very disappointed with him the last 5 years though.
 
Either absolutist position is wrong. Clearly there are people who have homosexual desires from an early age; clearly there are also many people who develop them later or under other circumstances, notably some women. It is also true that certain hyper-masculine social contexts can have an effect on how sexuality is played out, so that homosexual activities or dynamics can form part of a contextual sex / power structure with participants who otherwise would ostensibly be heterosexual in orientation. It doesn't help to pretend that social contexts and plasticity isn't a significant factor, just as it doesn't help to pretend that no one is born with these desires.
 
Ben Carson is a piece of shit.

Clearly there are people who have homosexual desires from an early age; clearly there are also many people who develop them later or under other circumstances, notably some women.
Click to expand...

What?
 
Opiate said:
It matters because we're typically more forgiving of (perceived) faults if they were not chosen.

If you are uneducated because you are lazy and didn't work hard in school, people have less sympathy for you than if you were simply born with significant mental disabilities.

Now, we can make another argument that homosexuality is not a fault, but that's not an argument that religious people are likely to listen to.
Click to expand...

This viewpoint seems flawed to me. Religious people aren't going to care either way, it's just a flawed idea and by engaging you are automatically put on the defensive rather than telling them "who cares?" or "so what?" These are the same people that think disability is God plan and that Jesus can faith heal the blind. You can win the factual argument and you'll still be at square one. Maybe God is okay with gene therapy as long as it's to weed out the gay? I'm think some can convince themselves of that. We need to reject the form of engagement.
 
This guy was the first dude ever to separate conjoined twins at the head. He's smart as hell and an amazing neurosurgeon and yet so stupid. Its sad his legacy is forever tarnished by this nonsense.

And he originally had some great views on Health Care

In a 1996 Megadiversities interview, he said: "The entire concept of for profits for the insurance companies makes absolutely no sense. 'I deny that you need care and I will make more money.' This is totally ridiculous. The first thing we need to do is get rid of for-profit insurance companies. We have a lack of policies and we need to make the government responsible for catastrophic health care."[33] In 1992 Carson wrote "The most natural question is, who will pay for catastrophic health care? The answer: The government-run catastrophic health care fund. Such a fund would be supported by a mandatory contribution of 10 to 15 percent of the profits of each health insurance company, including managed care operations.[33]
Click to expand...
 
MaddenNFL64 said:
Dude is a neurosurgeon, and yet dumb as all fuck in everything else. Don't get it.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why the realities of medical science don't turn all medical doctors into nihilists, yet quite a few of those I've met are very religious and rather open about it.
 
metalslimer said:
Ben Carson is a piece of shit.


What?
Click to expand...

Are you genuinely unaware of the vast gender differences in relation to how and when homosexuality tends to manifest in life? You needn't look far to find high-profile stories on this; there is a significant phenomenon of women who insist that they had only genuine heterosexual desires and marriages until, vary late in life, a sudden new love or desire emerged and led to a same-sex relationship.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/22/late-blooming-lesbians-women-sexuality

The greater fluidity of women's sexual desire across age is broadly recognized even though there are great differences in the theories attempting to account for it.
 
Bodacious said:
I've always wondered why the realities of medical science don't turn all medical doctors into nihilists, yet quite a few of those I've met are very religious and rather open about it.
Click to expand...

being confronted with death so often and sometimes being the cause of it (or at least not the savior) can easily cause people to seek answers which religion offers.

neobiz said:
Even if being gay is a choice what does it matter?
Click to expand...

because someone can be punished for a choice, they aren't entitled to strong legal protects and other things. It opens the door to conversion therapy, excuses for not allowing marriage, etc.
 
hachi said:
Are you genuinely unaware of the vast gender differences in relation to how and when homosexuality tends to manifest in life? You needn't look far to find high-profile stories on this; there is a significant phenomenon of women who insist that they had only genuine heterosexual desires and marriages until, vary late in life, a sudden new love or desire emerged and led to a same-sex relationship.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/22/late-blooming-lesbians-women-sexuality

The greater fluidity of women's sexual desire across age is broadly recognized even though there are great differences in the theories attempting to account for it.
Click to expand...

Sometimes they feel like a nut. Sometimes they don't.
 
It astounds me that he has such talent, but lacks basic knowledge outside of his field. Truly tragic.

I agree with the "so what if it's a choice" crowd. The choice argument is built on the premise of homosexuality being wrong. Being homosexual is not wrong, it's perfectly fine. It doesn't harm anyone, and it's a positive experience for those who partake. On this premise, it's irrelevant whether or not it's a choice. The issue is with those who think "gayness" is some kind of objective evil.
 
I think hes just as crazy as the people that believe sexual orientation cant be a choice. Im sure there cases for both.
 
Couleurs said:
And how often do people choose? Like is it a daily decision after figuring out what shirt to wear? I need to know how this works, I wish a Republican could fill me in.
Click to expand...

My gay friend has to choose at the start of every month.

Being bi sucks though, let me tell you. I have to fill out a form every morning to decide which gender I'm attracted to that day. Such a hassle, man.
 
Equating extreme prison culture to LBGTQ culture that exists outside of prison constructs is a huge fucking leap to make.
 
So many things wrong with his claim that go well beyond homophobia. While he's at it, he may as well say that people choose to go to prison, choose to be poor, choose to be black or Latino, and choose to be systematically oppressed.
 
It's hard to tell if he actually believes some of this shit or is just pandering to the social conservative wingnuts. Ted Cruz is also a very intelligent man but spews nonsense at every opportunity.
 
"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,"
Click to expand...

This reminds of an argument I heard where if you're okay with police releasing a profile of a suspect after a crime is committed than you should be okay with racial profiling before a crime too as it's basically the same thing.

I wish I could say I slapped that person, but my brain literally left my body and I found myself unable to move and ended up sat there listening to their reasoning for 10 minutes...
 
Disgusting. If I get raped in prison, does that make me gay? From my experiences, evangelical black people are the most homophobic of all. You'd think that they of all people would want to stand up for other minorities instead of marginalizing them.
 
It's impossible to choose to be gay. You're automatically attracted too..... or you're not attracted too.....Attraction is not a choice.
 
Nivash said:
I disagree, I think it's an important distinction for a lot of reason. Firstly, it's the only way you can put it on equal level with heterosexuality: if it's just a choice, it basically ends up in the fetish territory (which is where psychiatry relegated it to for decades). Secondly, it being an innate trait gives it legal protection on the level with race and sex. It doesn't get that level of protection if it's a choice because the law somewhat assumes that discrimination based on a choice is less severe than discrimination based on something you can't change your mind about if the going gets too tough. True, other choices - like religion or political beliefs - are protected in a similar way but not to the same degree. Compare same-sex marriage to FLDS polygamy. Thirdly, it shuts the door to any attempt at "treating" homosexuality through therapy, upbringing or social engineering.

Basically, cementing it as biological is the only way to truly normalize it rather than presenting it as something that's just down to an individual making a choice that may or may not be in their best interest. It's a very important distinction.
Click to expand...

All of those (good) reasons are what I was alluding to when I said that I "get why it's resorted to, from a tactical standpoint". It's a pragmatic approach to making progress in the reality of the world we live in, so in that sense, I support using it.

My point was more that I don't love that argument from a purely rational point of view, where the biological distinction would have no bearing on what behaviour I'd consider acceptable or not. We don't live in such an ideal world, of course.
 
Carson is really dumb if he thinks he has a chance in the universe to get the nomination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Accountant 2 - first trailer - Ben Affleck, Jon Bernthal
18
3K
EverydayBeast replied
Men of Culture: Rachel Brosnahan at the Critics Choice Awards 2025
2
55
3K
AJUMP23 replied
Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez file for divorce.
2 3
109
8K
Days like these... replied
11 years of being a gaffer
29
2K
Pakoe replied
The 4K cut of Crocodile Dundee is being censored for modern audiences
2
72
5K
Trogdor1123 replied
Top Bottom