Ben Carson: Is He the Real 'Progressive' on Homosexuality?

Ben Carson got himself into some trouble a couple of weeks back for remarks concerning homosexuality that he made during an exchange with CNN’s Chris Cuomo.

However, I’m not sure what exactly it is that Carson said that ignited such controversy—or any controversy.

Carson expressed his position that homosexuality—presumably, homosexual desire, not just conduct—is 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. But—for reasons that he failed to specify—Cuomo disagreed that this example vindicates Carson’s view.

Unsurprisingly, so-called “conservatives” in the media, including those who claim to be Carson’s admirers, pounced on Carson with all of the fury—and more—unleashed 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: he’s not eloquent at all. And while he is doubtless a man of great intelligence, this doesn’t mean that he’s either politically savvy or a critical thinker. Carson shouldn’t 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 would’ve unfolded much differently than they actually did.

First, Cuomo would’ve been forced to resolve the apparent inconsistency between his bio-centric vision of homosexuality and his concession to Carson’s commentary on the experience of male prisoners. After all, Cuomo, apparently, thinks that gays are “born that way.” Insofar as he agreed with Carson’s 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 don’t 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 decision—every step of the way.”

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 wouldn’t 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 it’s 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 there’s no biological basis to sexual orientation? Are we willing to promise that on that day, we’ll give back any gay rights we’ve 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 1860’s. 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 Kertbeny’s 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, Carson’s 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 won’t 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.

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.

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.

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.