• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you consider voting for Dr. Ben Carson for president in 2016?

Would you vote for Dr Ben Carson for president in 2016?


  • Total voters
    63
While we're on the topic of freedom, why do you feel it is your right to use the government to take away freedoms from homosexuals that you readily enjoy? Do you feel that they're subhuman and less deserving of the rights you have?

In America, 51% can not vote away the rights of a group of people. We all have equal rights under the law and the supreme court has affirmed 14 times over the course of 150 years that marriage is a fundamental human right. So why does your hate run so deep that you want to deny someone basic human rights?

Yes we all have equal rights under the law. But no where in the Constitution does it define marriage as such a right. States determine the policies of marriage not the federal government. Even Barney Frank a far leftist and gay admits that gay marriage is a state issue.

Barney Frank: Same-Sex Marriage is a State Issue - NationalJournal.com
 
There are several highly successful folks outside of politics I am not so sure would do well in politics.

He doesn't believe evolution

he compared gays marrying to bestiality or boy rape

He is feted for his 'truth to power' prayer breakfast and unbowed attitude to the PC police of this nation BUT then bows to the very same 'police' after his gays/dog pucker/boy raper marriage statement threatens his relationship with johns hopkins and withdraws from delivering the commencement speech after students start a petition with an apology using his religion as both an excuse and cover.

So stand up to the PC police as long as it doesn't affect you personally.... :roll:

He would ban semi auto firearms from cities- I am not REAL sure how he defines city, semi or the mechanism to do so.

he has prostrate cancer- he could live another 20 years or be hindered in bearing the huge burden that is the "Leader of the Free World".
 
Yes we all have equal rights under the law. But no where in the Constitution does it define marriage as such a right. States determine the policies of marriage not the federal government. Even Barney Frank a far leftist and gay admits that gay marriage is a state issue.

Barney Frank: Same-Sex Marriage is a State Issue - NationalJournal.com

And yet the supreme court has decided 14 times over a 150 year period that marriage is a fundamental human right. They are the ones we've designated to make that decision, so trying to relabel it as a privilege to support someone's own hateful bias is frankly disgusting.
 
states should have the right to deny some people freedoms, is that right? what if a state wants to define marriage a a union only between members of the same race? what if a state wants to allow a restaurant owner the right to deny service to blacks simply because they're black? it's a fairly common libertarian position ... you O.K. with it?

gotta head to work ... catch you later ...

I believe in protecting the votes of every individual within a state on all issues. I may not care for the outcome but when the majority votes in favor of anything, their votes need to be protected. There are groups/organizations in every state set up by race and gender. There are some for blacks only and for whites only, for men only and for women only. Do they have that right? Yes. If a black restaurant owner dare to deny a white person service because of his color or vise versa, they allow their prejudices to keep them from making money. When the word gets out they hold these prejudices they shoot themselves in their on foot and most likely the business will have a short life because of it.

Whatever any individual American thinks about marriage, the courts shouldn’t redefine it. Marriage policy should be worked out through the democratic process, not dictated by unelected judges in an activist decision that has no grounding in the text or logic of our Constitution. And that is exactly what happened in California after prop 8 was passed by the people. Their votes were made useless due to activist political appointed judges serving on the 9th circus court of appeals.

What the Republicans did passing DOMA is just as wrong as the Leftist Democrats using the argument of gay marriage as a civil right when there is nothing in our Constitution nor our civil laws that define marriage as a civil right.

Now to get things back on topic in regard to Dr. Carson. I admire the man and his accomplishments. I find his fiscal polices quite refreshing and love the idea that he is so not Political Correct. But if he is willing to over-reach in Constitutional powers not respecting federalism and states rights, in regard to marriage or anything else, I could not support him. Cheers!
 
And yet the supreme court has decided 14 times over a 150 year period that marriage is a fundamental human right. They are the ones we've designated to make that decision, so trying to relabel it as a privilege to support someone's own hateful bias is frankly disgusting.
And how many of these rulings used the basic definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman? All 14? Look, if you are an advocate for same sex marriage then work it within your state to make it law. But the practice of using political appointed justices to judge shop to further your agenda needs to stop. For it voids the votes of the people. When everyone has to live under the rule of 9 people in robes that were politically appointed, then it's time to address the issue of the limited powers laid out in the Constitution of every branch of the federal government.
 
When everyone has to live under the rule of 9 people in robes that were politically appointed, then it's time to address the issue of the limited powers laid out in the Constitution of every branch of the federal government.

hear hear :applaud
Obamacare anyone?
 
In fact I'll give you a 100% money back guarantee you'd disagree with the Doctor on every issue upsidedownguy
 
Far too conservative, socially for me. Seems like a likable guy as a human being, though.
 
In fact I'll give you a 100% money back guarantee you'd disagree with the Doctor on every issue upsidedownguy

I probably should take that bet.... I certain I would find things I agree with him on. There are some things I am pretty far to the right on...
 
Back
Top Bottom