- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 120,637
- Reaction score
- 76,711
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Carson made the comment on Meet the Press. And it's circulating around various sites, but no, not the Onion.
Here:
Sooo...just throwing out another remark that, in my opinion, isn't a good time to be denying "evolution" for any serious presidential hopeful.
It's not that any state is trying to enforce a constitutional right by excluding same-sex partners in its marriage laws. States which continue to do that--as every state had always done until not many years ago--claim this exclusion from legal marriage does not raise any constitutional issue, any more than the exclusion of multiple partners, or ones who are younger than some specified age, or already married, or more closely related by blood than some specified degree. That's my view also.
Family law has always been almost exclusively a state concern, and nothing in the Constitution prevents any state that chooses to from allowing homosexuals to marry each other. But people who want to advance the homosexual agenda are not content to leave it to the majority in each state to decide in their marriage laws. The democratic process is too slow for them, and they are intolerant of what they see as intolerance. These crusaders want to make everyone dance to their tune--and now.
That is why they want the Supreme Court to concoct a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, just as people who wanted to advance the abortion agenda wanted--and got--the Court to concoct a constitutional right to abortion four decades ago. If that means making the Constitution say things most of us know very well it does not say, they could not care less. All they care about is imposing their will on everyone who does not share their glowing approval of homosexuality, and if that requires torturing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment into something unrecognizable, if's fine by them. Most of these people don't much like the Constitution anyway.
Well, you were wrong.
So, in other words, my comment was correct, discounting your false implication.
And neither determines whether the person is stupid or not. :shrug: Perfectly rational people believe silly things. There are incredibly rational members on this forum who believe vaccines have a link to alzheimer's. Other members on this forum have degrees in science but happen to be libertarians. Again, your personal beliefs on a single subject do not determine your level of intelligence.
If it is not a choice, then identical twins would both be gay or not. And boom goes that theory.
it doesnt "seem" it is contradictory
i support woman and blacks rights and Constitutional protections but if the stat wants to treat them as lesser i support that too! lol
he is obviously one of those tools that THINKS and FEELS they are already treated equal . . .
Something like 'the trees are just the right height' ...Carson is trying to say all the right words even if they are contradictory.
Being gay isnt related to a specific gene, so you're wrong.
Did you think that to be born a certain way, it must be genetic???? There's no gene for heterosexuality.....
A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[9] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources ...
The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results;
Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carson made the comment on Meet the Press. And it's circulating around various sites, but no, not the Onion.
Here:
Sooo...just throwing out another remark that, in my opinion, isn't a good time to be denying "evolution" for any serious presidential hopeful.
Something like 'the trees are just the right height' ...
If you have identical twins, then it stands to reason they must have the same sexual orientation... if it's not a choice.
Carson is trying to say all the right words even if they are contradictory.
YIKES! Calling evolution "propaganda" is pretty bad.
Not if that serious presidential hopeful wants to appeal to a broad spectrum of potential voters.
lol I agree, he is TRYING . . . .
poor guy is in way over his head
he also made the statement that he just isnt going to talk about gays anymore, that he "learned his lesson"
well benny, i got news for you . . . .you just decided to run or feel out the waters for president and right now in todays political climate/atmosphere equal rights/gay rights is a big topic so you dont have a choice . . .
you either talk about it and get bashed for your feelings that many will judge as bigoted or you dont talk about it and you get bashed for being a topic dodger and people still assume its because your views are bigoted and you dont want to share them :shrug:
like i have said many times, he lost before he even started
There's nothing circular about repeating the relevant points in order to show how the other points are irrelevant
Marriage is a fundamental right. This is a fact, and I've shown that SCOTUS has stated this.
Carson believes that gays should have equal rights. This (ie "should have") is an opinion, but it is a fact that this is his opinion.
If gays should have equal rights, and marriage is a right, then gays should have the right to marry. It is a contradiction to claim you both support equal rights *and* the power of states to deny some people their rights.
There's no getting around that. If you're getting dizzy, it's from trying to find a way around this.
Even more importantly is that the ruling stated the denying the benefits to SSM couples is a form of gender discrimination which served no legitimate governmental interest. That same line of thinking is why the court will invalidate any and all SSM bans.
Who's reason, yours?
Since they dont have to and it's not a choice, then it doesnt stand to reason at all.
Did you 'choose' to be straight?
(And your link didnt even say it was a choice :doh)
1.)It doesn't speak well to his preparation for a run. When he decided to announce his exploratory status, he should have had basic responses to hot topical questions canned and ready to go. That means thinking about the outcome of said response BEFORE it came out of his mouth, because you are right. Presidential candidates are compelled to discuss their views on everything or be labeled a dodger. He can't just wave hand say "no comment". LOL
I said in most states....that was opinion AND fact. I did qualify not all states as a couple had approved it.
Obama's was still opinion.
Carson's statement was not opinion, it was factually incorrect.
Because there is a Circuit Court split on the matter -- and that's what they generally do when there is a split.
Obama's was an opinion, and a very bad opinion. I'm just curious why he got a pass and Carson doesn't. Or I guess more importantly, I still don't understand why anyone cares what Carson thinks about the issue anyway.
It's not that any state is trying to enforce a constitutional right by excluding same-sex partners in its marriage laws. States which continue to do that--as every state had always done until not many years ago--claim this exclusion from legal marriage does not raise any constitutional issue, any more than the exclusion of multiple partners, or ones who are younger than some specified age, or already married, or more closely related by blood than some specified degree. That's my view also.
Family law has always been almost exclusively a state concern, and nothing in the Constitution prevents any state that chooses to from allowing homosexuals to marry each other. But people who want to advance the homosexual agenda are not content to leave it to the majority in each state to decide in their marriage laws. The democratic process is too slow for them, and they are intolerant of what they see as intolerance. These crusaders want to make everyone dance to their tune--and now.
That is why they want the Supreme Court to concoct a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, just as people who wanted to advance the abortion agenda wanted--and got--the Court to concoct a constitutional right to abortion four decades ago. If that means making the Constitution say things most of us know very well it does not say, they could not care less. All they care about is imposing their will on everyone who does not share their glowing approval of homosexuality, and if that requires torturing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment into something unrecognizable, if's fine by them. Most of these people don't much like the Constitution anyway.
I dont know, states like S. Dakota, Kansas, and TX are still attempting to teach creationism in science classes to dispute evolution. Bet there's other states that would love to jump on that bandwagon....but hopefully not the majority of the people (bet it could be close tho!)
IMO the distinction is that Obama's was his opinion (and again...mostly accurate at that time) and Carson's was a statement of fact that was actually wrong. It wasnt his opinion, he actually believes or believed that men 'are turned gay' in prison.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?