Posted on 03/04/2015 6:34:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Does prison sex prove that sexual orientation is a choice? Given that much of what constitutes “sex” in prison occurs under some sort of duress, using it as an example of “choice” seems like … a stretch, to say the least. Dr. Ben Carson, who just announced the formation of a presidential exploration committee, defended the traditional definition of marriage in an interview this morning with CNN’s Chris Cuomo by relying on that argument to differentiate same-sex marriage advocacy from the civil rights movement (via Twitchy):
Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon and potential Republican presidential candidate, said Wednesday that “a lot of people who go into prison straight, and when they come out they’re gay.”
The remarks were made on CNN’s “New Day” in response to a question from host Chris Cuomo, who asked if Carson thought being gay was a “choice.”
“Absolutely,” Carson replied.
Asked why, he went on to explain his prison theory. “So did something happen while they were in there?” he said. “Ask yourself that question.”
Actually, please don’t. It’s entirely possible to defend the traditional definition of marriage and even the position that sexuality is a choice without citing prison sex as an indicator. Even some in the LGBT community see sexuality as a choice rather than innate, and the real answer probably lies somewhere in between — and individually, all over that range.
This is the kind of answer that makes it pretty clear that Carson’s winging it. There are plenty of ways to defend the traditional definition of marriage, perhaps especially as protection for children in procreative relationships, which is really the only real stake the state has in regulating interpersonal relationships between consenting and non-consanguinal adults anyway. Non-procreative relationships can acquire most if not all of the legal benefits of marriage through partnership contracts. The real free-market solution is to get government out of marriage altogether and let the churches define it for their congregants and have everyone rely on contracts, which government is actually suited to enforce.
This argument only serves as fodder for those who want to Akinize the whole Republican Party. If Dr. Carson wants to compete at the highest level, he’ll need to either learn the issues a lot better, or learn how to parry the obvious media attempts to make him look like a nut from the fringe. And don’t think for a moment that the media will refrain from painting all Republican presidential contenders as nuts for this, either. They will be looking for a distraction from Hillary Clinton’s meltdown, and this might do nicely for a cycle or two. Want to bet this comes up in a primary debate?
+1 to your comment.
Are “Matlock” fans the same as “Baseball” fans. Did you catch Jimmy McGill’s (alias Saul Goodman) ‘Matlock’ suit when he was delivering the jello to the nursing home on Monday night.
Gag...
I have no idea what you wrote.
Yes I agree the good Doctor needs to be more careful.
I do applaud you for your discipline. In this hyper-media world young people are bombarded with sex. So behavior is no surprise. They’re also not being taught morals, everything is just morally relative to them. That’s not their fault though, we all share some responsibility for that.
The bottom line, we’re not animals, we shouldn’t behave as such. It sounds crazy but we could eliminate STD’s by not having sex before marriage and not committing adultery. If 100% compliance were possible (yes, I’m dreaming but in principle) then they would just disappear. Now put that concept into the gay world - it’s the complete opposite.
To me marriage, with the moral issues surrounding pre-marital sex and adultery, are about putting a man and a woman into the correct context to have children if they wish to, WHILE not spreading disease.
Everything else does not fall into that context. If we’re going to allow different forms of marriage, backed by law, then it should have a specific definition. I don’t see anyone offering one - therefore it means nothing.
Either we believe a physician or some homosexual writer in Hollywood or other old media outlet. Who is more likely to tell the truth?
The fact there are more queers in prison is relevant to the fact that homosexuality is a mental disorder and is akin to other criminal tendencies.””
Indeed you are right. Male homos in reality are coprophiliacs, while some prison degenerates, once they get out, revert to more normal behavior. The coprophiliac never changes without psychotherapeutic intervention.
Then let me explain. First, the stereotype is that baseball fans are of the same demographic as ‘Matlock’ fans, you know, one foot in the cemetery. Second, the reference is of Monday’s episode of the hit series, “Better Call Saul”, one in which ‘Matlock’ and nursing homes were referenced. Since it is two days after the airing of the episode, I mistakenly must have assumed you saw it.
So you will learn to enjoy homosexual sex if you have to go without normal sex for a time?
It sounds like there might be more you aren't telling us.
“Maybe I missed it in the article, but isn’t this the conservative position, that gaydomnessship is a choice?”
I don’t think there’s really a “conservative position” on that question - plenty of conservatives think it’s a choice, plenty of conservatives think it’s not.
Same gender attraction = not really
Same gender behavior = As much a choice as any other kind of sexual behavior.
HOMOSEXUAL, because there's nothing GAY about it.
“It shows that with enough hormones on board many men will go for ‘any port in a storm’”
Psychotic perverts yes.
Declassifying it didn't make it any less so.
Probably comes up in the shower at the gym.(Ducking quickly)
It seems to me that whether homosexuality is innate or acquired is a clinical psychiatric question. There is no "conservative" or "liberal" position on questions of medicine, things are either true or false. Personally, I detest it when clinical/scientific issues get politicized - it reminds me of how Soviet Communists declared that genetics couldn't be true because it was "capitalist science", or Nazis declaring that relativistic physics can't be true because it was "Jewish science".
My own take is that the notion of somebody hitherto attracted to the opposite sex wakes up one day and says, "I'm going to start having intercourse with the same sex, just because I'm a rebel" is absurd. Whether this means that homosexuality is a genetic trait or the product of early childhood environment, however, remains an open question, but a clinical one, not a political one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.