I am sure Obama would be thrilled if the SC reversed itself on Citizens United. I would be thrilled if they reversed themselves on their ridiculous Obamacare rulings. So what?
Ben Carson is boring
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
Have you not been paying attention to the laws in Texas/Alabama/Mississippi re: Abortion Facilities and the requirement that they have doctors with admitting privileges? Or the Planned Parenthood debates (anyone who uses those videos as an argument for defunding PP officially loses my vote, for being too dumb/dishonest to look into those videos deeper)?
Overturning Roe v. Wade (really, Casey) is not the only way that the pro-lifers can get what they want. Having someone like Carson as the head figurehead of this country certainly increases the likelihood that the pro-lifers would get their way.
Carson also said prison proves that being gay is a choice, which might not make him homophobic, but it does make him rather stupid, on that issue.
This is true...and concerning that someone who has access to so much knowledge chooses to disregard so much of it. But, faith and ideology are very, very powerful drivers. I have often wondered about how someone like you who is seemingly intelligent, with access to so much knowledge, can possess some of the economic and political views that you do...but I don't think you are crazy because of them. You probably think the same of me.
Ummm...the question was whether or not Carson "wants to deny equal marriage rights". So his feelings about the SC ruling would be directly on point. It would be like someone saying codflyer doesn't oppose Obamacare because he recognizes that the SC ruled for it. You'd probably argue that interpretation.
That is something that people would have to weigh in deciding whether or not to vote for him, certainly. In my opinion, it is not one of things that I am very concerned about versus other issues. To me, this is the leftwing version of when conservatives run around saying that Obama is coming for your guns. On some level, he certainly would if he could...but there is so much stacked against him that it just is not something that keeps me up at night. There are certainly other much more pressing issues in my mind to consider when deciding who you want in the oval office. But, obviously that is just my opinion.
I'm not denying that at all. I think if he had the ability to reverse SCOTUS's ruling he would, but acknowledges that's not a possibility.
What he has said, and again correct me if I'm wrong, is that he believes county clerks like Davis should be allowed to recuse themselves from formally acknowledging and/or accepting same-sex marriage by having their names on legal documents such as marriage licenses.
Oh I'm pretty sure I'm a little bit crazy, ignorant, belligerent and I drink. Fortunately that passes for color and eccentricity with my people. But I'm smart enough not to run for President on that platform.
Except, as a minority party, the GOP has done far more, in recent years especially, to curb abortion than the Dems have to increase gun control.
I'm not saying it's my #1 voting consideration by any means. But to claim that it shouldn't be considered, because others haven't been successful in overturning Casey, is pretty dishonest. It's clearly a huge point in Carson's, and other's, agendas.
That's nothing more than trying to find a backdoor dodge to subvert the SC ruling, George Takei does a great job taking her First Amendment argument apart here.
So what does the Establishment Clause have to do with Kim Davis? It’s actually rather straightforward. She is a government employee charged with performing a clerical task (issuing a marriage license). As an employee of the government, the moment she imposed her own personal religious beliefs (that only straight couples should be married), she raised an Establishment Clause problem. By insisting on applying God’s law (or at least her interpretation of it) over the civil law, she gave greater weight by the government to a particular religious viewpoint, namely her own brand of Christianity. This was a plain violation of the Establishment Clause.
-snip-
As a public official, it isn’t even clear Ms. Davis does not in fact have the same rights to speak out let alone act in opposition to same-sex marriage as part of her official duties. [really awkward sentence there] As the conservative majority of the Supreme Court noted in the case of Garcetti v. Cebalos back in 2006, “[W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” In other words, Ms. Davis, as an officer of the county, is subject to the Establishment Clause limitations, and precisely because she is a government employee, does not have the right to claim First Amendment protection either for her speech or for her actions based on her faith.
I think he would be more nuanced about it...I think that in his mind maintaining the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is not the same as denying rights. IF you take the position that marriage is only valid as being between a man and a woman, by definition, no other kind of marriage exists, no matter how badly some people want it to. Rights don't enter into it. At least, I think that is how he sees it. I could be wrong.
I never said it shouldn't be considered. I said people would have to weigh it in their own minds against other issues important to them. For my part, it is not a major consideration. I understand that it might be for others.
That's what I gather from it. To people who observe this from a religious/Biblical point of view, "Marriage" can only be a man and woman, and isn't really something that can or should be recognized by the state (if you're a purist in your religion). That's where the civil unions reference comes in to play for them. They believe it should only be referred to as that. It's important to have that distinction for them. But, to secular types, that's to-may-to, to-mah-to. That's one reason I try to avoid religions.
Except that's not how you couched it in your initial post, which I responded to. You basically said it didn't matter because the President couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. Look at your words below and your words above and see if they are consistent...
"I agree it is a silly position. But I don't see it as a dangerous one based on how little influence (essentially none) he would be able to exert to change anything. This is sort of like pro-choice folks who get up in arms about pro-life politicians, as if all they have to do if they achieve office is hit the off-switch on the legality of abortions. Not too long ago we had a pro-life president, and strong majorities of pro-life republicans in both houses, with a pretty even supreme court...and we still have Roe v Wade. This is an important issue...but it is a side issue in the context of a presidential election. Gay people have won acceptance through the slow turning of public opinion at a granular level and an intellectually consistent framework in the judicial system...that sort of thing does not reverse course based on a presidential election. I prefer to approach candidates based on their positions in areas where they will actually have some power to say how things will go."
The point is Carson's (and other's) position does matter, on gays, on abortion, on pretty much everything. They're applying for the position of leader of the free world. Their opinions on pretty much everything matters, especially since a huge percentage of Americans focus on the President substantially more than they focus on Senators/Reps/SCOUTS/etc. The fact that Ben Carson thinks being gay is a choice is something that should be discussed, and, in my opinion, held against him. He shouldn't be allowed to hide from this.
So he wants to deny people of the same sex the ability to marry because he doesn't think they have the right to marry based on his definition of the word. That's kinda like saying southern racists wanted to deny blacks the ability to vote rather than the right to vote because the racists didn't acknowledge that their right to vote even existed because they were less than human...it's really a distinction without a difference.
My position simply is that I don't think it is a major front burner issue. Even though it is a current one, it is one where I think the ship has sailed, and even though a lot of people disagree with it I just don't see the deep-seated opposition to it that there is with abortion. And if abortion has survived as the law of the land for over 50 years after Roe v Wade, despite Republicans, and pro-life republicans at that, holding huge amounts of power for significant periods...I don't think gay marriage or the teaching of evolution is teetering on the brink. I can handle a president having some blind spots due to his ideology/religion on those topics much more than I can a president who is economically illiterate or a clueless socialist.
My position simply is that I don't think it is a major front burner issue. Even though it is a current one, it is one where I think the ship has sailed, and even though a lot of people disagree with it I just don't see the deep-seated opposition to it that there is with abortion. And if abortion has survived as the law of the land for over 50 years after Roe v Wade, despite Republicans, and pro-life republicans at that, holding huge amounts of power for significant periods...I don't think gay marriage or the teaching of evolution is teetering on the brink. I can handle a president having some blind spots due to his ideology/religion on those topics much more than I can a president who is economically illiterate or a clueless socialist.
That's where we differ. Also, you're ignoring the fact that abortion hasn't "survived as law of the land" recently. It's completely and totally under attack all over the South (by extremely religious people, not unlike Carson), to the point where women are facing significant burdens to getting the procedure. And that's not even addressing this dumb shit campaign to defund Planned Parenthood.
I think recognizing basic human rights and obeying the constitution (over the Bible) are far greater than subscribing to a singular economic theory. And I tend to lean right on economic issues. When you can't even fully recognize the Constitution as being above your stupid Bible, you don't deserve to be the leader of the free world.
So, not agreeing with your imbecilic view.
...makes one an imbecile?
Who's the imbecile now?
Thought so.
Of course, even a cursory study shows that a good number of the rules & regulations in the OT were specifically for that time. That God calls homosexual behavior sinful is, however, a theme that is universal throughout the entire Bible.
Wanna try again?
Nope, had that worked out from the beginning. Your presence in this thread makes me think otherwise about you.
Um, it's you who is imbecilic. This particular view of yours just happens to be commensurate with that baseline.
LOL!
Homosexuality is mentioned exactly TWICE in the entire thing, and the prohibition against eating shellfish EIGHT times.
Wanna try again?
Which is why it is so hard to take Christianity and other religions seriously.
But why does that matter? We live in the U.S.A. not a Christian nation. That literally should factor 0% in how we govern homosexual relations.
If you think it should help govern those relations, move your ass to the mid east.
No one said anything about governing anything. Homosexuals have always had the same rights as any other citizen. What they, as a group, want is special rights & considerations above and beyond what other citizens have.
If you read the Bible with the mind & heart that it was meant to be read with, it's very clear. You & your ilk have clearly chosen not to believe.
No. Not even close. You haven't successfully refuted anything I said, and that's really sad, given the comments about Carson's intellectual abilities. The combined lot of you couldn't wear his intellectual jock strap.
You're really having a hard time here, aren't you?
OK, I'll leave you all alone. ...you can have your little thread back.
Its true I don't believe but many of my ilk do. If you read the Bible as intended you will see that the bible isn't talking about homosexuality as we describe it today. It is talking about same sex pagan ritual sex with temple prostitutes that represented competing gods. You would also acknowledge that Jesus had not one word to say in opposition to loving same sex relationships and was found in the garden with a naked male youth.
JFC, you are coming off as borderline psychotic with this nonsense.
Judge not, lest ye be judged. Ever heard that one?
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
BREAKING: Brendan Sullivan Listed as QB1 Ahead of Game vs. Wisconsin- Latest: St. Louis Hawk