Skip to comments.Ben Carson: Is He the Real 'Progressive' on Homosexuality?
Posted on 03/23/2015 12:21:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ben Carson got himself into some trouble a couple of weeks back for remarks concerning homosexuality that he made during an exchange with CNNs Chris Cuomo.
However, Im not sure what exactly it is that Carson said that ignited such controversyor any controversy.
Carson expressed his position that homosexualitypresumably, homosexual desire, not just conductis the product of choice. To substantiate his thesis, Carson alluded to the phenomenon of (ostensibly) heterosexual prisoners who, upon engaging in homosexual relations while incarcerated, become gay.
Cuomo agreed that such a phenomenon occurs. Butfor reasons that he failed to specifyCuomo disagreed that this example vindicates Carsons view.
Unsurprisingly, so-called conservatives in the media, including those who claim to be Carsons admirers, pounced on Carson with all of the furyand moreunleashed upon him by the usual suspects on the left. Carson, one pundit insisted, was finished.
All of this was extremely odd. Granted, Carson is about as eloquent as he is a strong speaker: hes not eloquent at all. And while he is doubtless a man of great intelligence, this doesnt mean that hes either politically savvy or a critical thinker. Carson shouldnt have insisted that homosexual orientation per se, i.e. in all instances, is a choice. It was also a mistake to use the example of male prisoners, rather than, say, lesbians, to legitimize his point.
Still, if we were as remotely interested in logic as we are interested in emoting and scoring partisan points, things wouldve unfolded much differently than they actually did.
First, Cuomo wouldve been forced to resolve the apparent inconsistency between his bio-centric vision of homosexuality and his concession to Carsons commentary on the experience of male prisoners. After all, Cuomo, apparently, thinks that gays are born that way. Insofar as he agreed with Carsons assessment of male prisoners, he must acknowledge that phenomena of these sorts pose a counterexample to his belief.
Second, in this Age of Enlightenment on all things sexual, a day when homosexuality is loudly and proudly proclaimed to be just as viable and healthy an alternative to heterosexuality and homophobia is decried as among the gravest of secular sins, it is the Ben Carsons of our world who sound progressive on this issue. In stark contrast, Chris Cuomo sounds like a retrograde.
In other words, the new Zeitgeist on homosexuality would seem to demand that we relegate to the dustbin of history the idea that homosexuals dont deserve to be judged for their homosexuality because they were born that way. On the other hand, insofar as the new orthodoxy on homosexuality is supposed to be a function of sexual liberation generally, the idea that gays choose to be gay seems much more in keeping with the latter.
This is not just hypothetical reasoning on my part. For nearly 25 years, at least, gays themselves have been saying as much.
Back in 1991, Lindsy Van Gelder, a self-avowed lesbian, warned in Ms. Magazine against falling for what she described as the born that way trap. Against those proponents of gay rights who dismissed the prejudice and ignorance of the view that homosexuality is a matter of choice, Van Gelder is at pains to convince readers that for her, coming out was a conscious decisionevery step of the way.
She also insists that she is no aberration, at least among women.
Van Gelder identifies the public relations edge of the Born That Way line:
At the root of a lot of homophobia is a fear that gayness is somehow contagious. If people really did fit into neat little either/or sexual pigeonholes from birth, no one would be able to say that gay teachers could possibly recruit their students. Parents of gays would be off the blame hook. Straights wouldnt have to feel threatened by passing queer attractions.
In addition to these benefits, Van Gelder notes that the genetic view of homosexuality implies that if we [gays] could help it, we would. This, she elaborates, is what a fair number of straight people hear, including some of our allies. But what this means is that gays are then perceived as bearers of a genetic flaw rather than sexual equals. The Born That Way line conveys the message that its O.K. to regard us as sexually defective.
Van Gelder poses a thought provoking challenge to the proponents of Born That Way approach: Suppose, she asks, they discover that theres no biological basis to sexual orientation? Are we willing to promise that on that day, well give back any gay rights weve managed to win and march off to the psychic showers to be cure[d] of [our] homosexuality(emphasis original)?
In 1992, homosexual and gay rights activist Darrell Yates Rist penned an instructive article in The Nation. Rist alludes to the Hungarian activist doctor who coined the term homosexual in the 1860s. The doctor, writing under the pseudonym K.M. Kertbeny, addressed a letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in response to a new penal code that would criminalize sexual relations between men. Kertbeny opposed the proposed measures, arguing that homosexuality is an inborn, and therefore irrepressible, drive [.]
Rist quotes authors John Lauritsen and David Thorstad who summarized Kertbenys position as such: If homosexuality is inborn it cannot be regarded as a punishable offense by rational persons who respect the mysterious laws of nature.
My objective here is to defend neither Ben Carson nor his position on this complex matter. The point, rather, is that given our rapidly changing mores with respect to homosexuality, Carsons position that homosexuality is chosen appears to be more in keeping with the spirit of these new mores than is the belief that homosexuality is biologically determined.
My prediction is that it wont be long until the self-sworn guardians of progressive thought on homosexuality will have succeeded in branding the Born That Way line as an expression of virulent homophobia. Soon, no respectable person will dare to regard homosexuality as anything but an enlightened, courageous choice.
From what I have learned, there is no real consensus on what causes homosexuality.
Classic biblical Christianity states that humans are born in sin. According to such a view, “born that way” and “chosen” could be both/and, in some cases.
I believe it does tie into the nature of the “sin in Adam” (and Eve). Regardless of the time line by which it plays out on this earthly plane.
When humanity, as a group, went for the great lure of “knowing good and evil” (which was a sham, because only God can truly do that) it embraced all manner of confusions and oversimplifications.
As a father who successfully raised three young daughters to be useful young ladies and great mothers, I can testify that virile young men can and do have a sudden change of their orientation by just looking at my S & R six shooter or my Samurai sword, both of which are prominently displayed in my living room.
But I did learn today he’s an Adventist, which I found of interest.
Gore Vidal ( the regular debating opponent of Bill Buckley ) was openly homosexual when being so was then considered shameful by society.
Yet, the strange thing is he REFUSED to identify as homosexual.
This is what he said:
“We are all bisexual to begin with. That is a fact of our condition. And we are all responsive to sexual stimuli from our own as well as from the opposite sex. Certain societies at certain times, usually in the interest of maintaining the baby supply, have discouraged homosexuality. Other societies, particularly militaristic ones, have exalted it. But regardless of tribal taboos, homosexuality is a constant fact of the human condition and it is not a sickness, not a sin, not a crime ... despite the best efforts of our puritan tribe to make it all three. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Notice I use the word ‘natural,’ not normal” [Gore Vidal (September 1969). “A Distasteful Encounter with William F. Buckley Jr.”. Esquire. p. 140.]
Desires which are unnatural (as “uniting” with an anal cavity or goat” ) is never a “born with desire” (genetic). Man is not “born” with a desire to rape babies or children or other males. It is a warping (intrinsic disorder) of desires (Worldview) which is formed by a toxic culture/environment.
All Virtue is learned and habituated by experiences in nature. Without a loving mother and father, children can easily be warped and their desires perverted-—like with Chastity Bono being raped when she was 11 by a Lesbian. The perversion can be caused by peer rejection (emasculation) also and absent fathers or by fathers who belittle their boys or overbearing mothers.
All unnatural desires are learned and habituated by early child abuse usually (or neglect). (Moberly, Psychogenisis).
OR-—there is absolutely no moral formation in young childhood, so children grow up with the mindset of Marquis de Sade (or Jeffrey Dahmer), who was a sodomite along with a believer in the destruction of marriage and all biological connections (Marxism) and could do any dehumanizing and degrading thing to anyone, even children. Homosexuality is pure lust and narcissism and a fixation in a puerile stage of life.
There is no such thing as “genetic”-caused desires which go against Natural Laws-—although there could be abnormalities at birth—which can be measured scientifically—but those are extremely rare and caused by toxins in the environment.
All history proves that little boys that are raised in harems and abused, will grow up to lust after males/boys and goats or whatever-—there is no sexual morality formation—none. They will hate and mutilate the opposite sex-—who will be relegated to “breeder” and children will be bought and sold-—usually for sexual abuse like with the Samurai and the Spartans and in Afghanistan, which end up being the most sexist cultures on earth.
Kind of a generalized amorality?
He was quoting Freud-—who thought every normal boy wanted to have sex with their mother and every normal girl wanted to have sex with their father.
It is a lie-—and Freud perverted the whole idea of natural sexual identity formation in children and created the sexualization (destroying Virtue formation) in children which will collapse culture.
Children are innocent of such warped ‘desires’ unless they are sexualized or traumatized in unnatural ways in early childhood. Kinsey was a pervert and child abuser-—and he “normalized” the sexualization in children which warps their natural identity formation-—to destroy Virtue.
Lukacs developed “Sex Ed” for schools to destroy the innocence of children and promote vice and perversions, which is necessary for warping Reality/Truth/God and destroying moral Virtue which the Cultural Marxists knew would destroy Virtue. (Christian Ethics).
Note the destruction of marriage and morality after “sex ed” and Kinsey/Freud ethics were forced into curricula by the 50s-—and sex was stripped of morality by the normalizing of perversions and muslim/pagan ethics in little children.
Virtue is learned and habituated in early childhood. Parents do no moral formation anymore-—they allow TV sodomite morality and school perverts who write all the curricula, to form the worldview of their children. Even the Catholic school curricula has been sexualized and devoid of moral formation with their wishy-washy religionless Christianity of Pope Francis since the 70s and ejection of true Classical Education.
RE: Kind of a generalized amorality?
I think Vidal’s unstated thesis is this — there are certain “triggers” that causes a person to act on sexual impulses. Some do and some don’t.
So, looking at the 10 commandments, to Gore Vidal,
Just as humans can, in moments of temptation, be potential adulterers, murderers, thieves and coveters, humans can also be potential homosexuals.
He might be onto something and indirectly supports what Ben Carson has been in-eloquently trying to drive at...
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.