Ben Carson says being gay is a choice

[aujeff11 6,243]

I knew a gay kid in high school that was picked on over and over again because he was so gay that there was no doubt about him being gay. If you ever watched the TV show "modern family, " just imagine the fat gay man on the show but 10 times worse. He is about 27 now and freely gay with new accepting friends but just to show you how he was treated as a pre teen, a football player once dropped kicked him in the sack and everybody around laughed at him. It was like this for him throughout high school with the bullying and the ridicule.

I find it impossible to believe that that kid chose to be gay. Not only because of his style, personality, demeanor, etc but because of the repercussions he had to endure just for his sexuality. He lived in an anti gay, deeply conservative environment too so the environment had nothing to do with it.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Bi racial relationships rise every year as the environment becomes more acceptive to it.

I find it curious, that almost exclusively, when I see bi racial couples in tv shows, it's the same template, over and over. White, blonde haired woman, black guy. Maybe more so on BBC than here in the US, but it's almost the same , over and over and over.The lone exception I can think of ? The married couple from LOST, black woman, white guy. And didn't the husband die, early on?

Just a random side bar to the above comment.

[cptau 169]

Legitimate question here because I don't know the answer. What % of the population is gay? And has/does that % stayed the same? The thinking would be that if being gay is an inherent DNA/gene makeup, then outside influences should have no impact on the % of the population that is gay and that % should not change very much. Is that the case? I do not know?

Last time I researched it was a few years ago and as I recall, conservative estimates were in the 2-3% range but with some estimates a good bit higher.

There's no way of knowing if that number has increased or decreased as the data just don't exist. There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality has alway been present in the human population to some degree, as it has in other species as well.

Masters & Johnson said they thought homosexuality could be as high as 10%. The new accepted norms run 1-3% That would still mean 3.1M-9.3M-31M gays in America alone.

Did anyone actually mean to state that that rate would vary based on environment or some other component?

I am not an authority here, but i do like what the statistical analysis does state for us. I would think that the rate of homosexuaulity would be a fairly steady constant, say plus or minus 3% of the stated norm: @ 1%, that would mean +/- .3% or @ 3 %, +/- .9% , @10%, +/- 3.1M giving us a range of about .7% - 3.9%-13% or 2.1M upto 34M.

I believe the new understanding would be 1-3% now days tho.

If the reasons are genetic & environment, which i do believe, i still think the ultimate mix of all those detailed components should give us pretty steady results.

So unless, there was some HUGE shift in environment, there should not be any shift in the %ages. Genetics would/should yield very stable contributions.

Now, why would culture want to kill a homosexual?

1) You have not affected the genetic contribution to homosexuality at all. So, over time, Zero difference made by killing.

2) If you killed a homsexual, all you would do is free up the environmental contributors to shift another person. So, with time, again, effectively Zero difference made by killing.

So, i guess i will now be accused of being gay or being a PFLAG member, etc. After all, nothing gets mouth breathers going harder than mentioning gays.

In short: Ben Carson maybe actually correct, in some small way. Dumping people that are likely sexually 'over-active' into an environment where there are no heterosexual partners is of course going to lead to many participating in homosexual behavior, either thru rape or seeking out a true homosexual partner. This should be a temporary happenstance for most, most returning to their hetero ways once released. But then again, we have had the same basic structure for housing law breakers since the dawn of time, and i could make a valid point that jail/prison would likely be counted as a normal environmental contributor.

Said all that to conclude on this: If i read correctly, (some seem to be saying that there may be some real fluctuations in overall numbers) i dont see how whatever the true normal statistic for homosexuality is, (1-3-10%), there really should not be any real variation thru genetics nor thru environmental contributors, OVER TIME.

So, Carson could be right, but using his exception in the debate actually likely reflects so few true changes that it should have been dismissed. It is a special circumstance.

I like Dr Carson, but that was a not a well thought out answer. I will not be supporting him for President, specifically because he has no background in govt. He is too inexperienced to be a real candidate, IMHO.

There appears to be what is called a heterosexual to homosexual continuum what has groups of people all along the range. Some people move along that range at least in the behavior they exhibit.

There are those that are privately or openly bisexual. There are others that at one time in their lives may have appeared heterosexual, married and had children. Later they became openly homosexual or bisexual. The question is were they always bisexual and suppressed the homosexual side until later in life? So I'm not sure what the percentage of the population being homosexual really means. Does the percentage being homosexual include bisexuals?

[DKW 86 7,431]

http://www.breitbart...-than-supposed/

The Washington Post reports that a highly definitive study from 2013 has pegged the size of the gay population in the United States at far less than has sometimes been estimated.

The National Health Interview Survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is the federal government’s most relied upon estimate of the nation’s health and behaviors, found that fewer than 3% of respondents self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Only 1.6% of respondents self-identified as gay or lesbian, and even less, 0.7%, self-identified as bisexual.

The estimate of the percentage of bisexuals was lower than the 2008 General Social Survey, which estimated that number at 1.1 percent, while other surveys have intimated that the percentage of bisexuals is the same as gays.

Conversely, 96.6% self-identified as straight, while 1.1% answered, “I don’t know the answer” or stated they were “something else.”

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.

Just adding this in here because MSM (Males having sex with Males) is something we havent talked about here and i just really ran across it as a statistic.

MSM is sometimes said to be as high as 16% in the US.

MSM is the proverbial 'Greek Sex' identifying males, hetero describing, gay sex in engaging, males. They do not engage in the gay lifestyle, but do engage in gay sex i guess.

http://www.menshealth.com/banned-for-life/

(A 2011 Florida Department of Health study estimated that approximately 7.1 million MSM live in the United States)

Lot of squish in the numbers. Secondly, when you actually google the numbers, just about all you see is statistics in the US in regards to HIV & AIDS.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/MSMSouthernUSStudy-Nov-2009.pdf

See Page 6

Total US 6.8% MSM. Remember that this number is generated from SOUTHERN US STATES.

[homersapien 11,393]

You guys are right...Dr. Benjamin Carson knows absolutely nothing about biology. Therefore,we should just dismiss him as a religious nut.

Actually, it's the fact that - considering his background - he would make such a pronouncement is what makes him a religious nut.

[homersapien 11,393]

I'm simply guessing he has a better grasp on biology than any of us. Just a hunch. Since I don't really know any of you I could be wrong.

He obviously doesn't have a better grasp on the published research than many of us do.

[homersapien 11,393]

Good question, but my answer would be no. Gay Pride is a powerful thing. I've worked with a number of gay men and they are willing to fight even die for their rights.

Few men , or women, are so brave as to actually die for their beliefs.

You HONESTLY think that a person would be willing to be put to death for something they aren't ?

I'll have to weigh-in with Raptor on this. (Will miracles never cease!?)

Perhaps Dr. Carson has homosexual proclivities and made a choice sometime in his life not to act on them. It's hard for me to imagine a "true" heterosexual imagining he had the ability to simply "choose" to be gay.

But that's just me.

[homersapien 11,393]

I don't mean to suggest her experience is the same as all homosexuals, but in her case she has made a choice. Dr. Carson said he believes homosexuality is a choice and this particular example backs his claim.

Sorry for the random response. Trying to learn the quote aspect of this forum.

Human sexuality exists in a continuum. It includes people who are bisexual.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Of course, we all remember that magical time in our lives, when a young boy or girl, pondering which 'feels' right, takes the fateful step and then chooses to be either gay or straight.

Or not.

[homersapien 11,393]

Good question, but my answer would be no. Gay Pride is a powerful thing. I've worked with a number of gay men and they are willing to fight even die for their rights.

Few men , or women, are so brave as to actually die for their beliefs.

You HONESTLY think that a person would be willing to be put to death for something they aren't ?

Meant to touch on this earlier, but I know quite a few soldiers that would disagree with that statement. And I am sure that is not your inference, just saying.

As far as your comment relates to gay men, ask them if they are afraid of contracting AIDS. It will give insight into the pride I referenced.

Raptor should have said few men or women are prepared to die for their "choices".

Such "beliefs" as you describe worth dying for would be more accurately portrayed as who they feel they really are - their self-conceptualization which includes their basic moral values.

As for the AIDS thing, if you mean what I think you mean, that sounds more like denial or self-delusion.

[homersapien 11,393]

I don't mean to suggest her experience is the same as all homosexuals, but in her case she has made a choice. Dr. Carson said he believes homosexuality is a choice and this particular example backs his claim.

Sorry for the random response. Trying to learn the quote aspect of this forum.

You'll get used to it. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

Even if she did, how would we know that? She very well could have been mistaken, or she could have been lying. Who knows?

As I said earlier, I'd recommend some Google-fu on the subject. There's a lot of published scientific literature on the subject supporting that it is not a choice. Note how few of those present an opposing view.

Them we have Dr. Carson. True, he probably studied biology in depth a few decades ago, but he is arguing on a matter outside of his expertise. A matter on which his view happens to fly in the face of the consensus on the matter.

Yes welcome Tiger! I think you'll actually learn quite a bit on the forum. I know I have. Plus there is the added comedy relief. Trust me on that. Great bunch here. Enjoy!

Not to mention the tragedy.

[aubfaninga 16]

Of course, we all remember that magical time in our lives, when a young boy or girl, pondering which 'feels' right, takes the fateful step and then chooses to be either gay or straight.

<_</>

Or not.

Actually the number of preadolescent sexual experimentation is actually quite high. It's hard to find the numbers but they are out there. (found it before but it's hiding now)

If I remember correctly the number is upwards of 55% just in males.

[homersapien 11,393]

Thanks for the welcome.

I have read multiple studies on this topic and have questions I don't feel have been completely answered so my doubts remain.

I realize I threw out an easy and obvious example of choice, but it's one I felt everyone would be familiar with. My example probably made me look simplistic in my views.

I agree that Dr. Carson's expertise is not in genetics, but that doesn't undermine his ability to understand the topic to a great degree.

I find it interesting that such an intelligent man is being so quickly dismissed in this thread. He's not a politician so he is going to say things that a handler didn't get to review first. The prison example was probably not a good example and I think he has already acknowledged that and apologized for offending people.

Still working on that Quote thingy.

And that's the point.

He surely understands that his area of expertise, as deep as it is, is very narrow. He obviously has the capability to understand the science. (Which is more accurately sexuality, not genetics.)

So why - as a potential candidate for president - would he make such a statement that is grounded in such obvious ignorance?

[aubfaninga 16]

Thanks for the welcome.

I have read multiple studies on this topic and have questions I don't feel have been completely answered so my doubts remain.

I realize I threw out an easy and obvious example of choice, but it's one I felt everyone would be familiar with. My example probably made me look simplistic in my views.

I agree that Dr. Carson's expertise is not in genetics, but that doesn't undermine his ability to understand the topic to a great degree.

I find it interesting that such an intelligent man is being so quickly dismissed in this thread. He's not a politician so he is going to say things that a handler didn't get to review first. The prison example was probably not a good example and I think he has already acknowledged that and apologized for offending people.

Still working on that Quote thingy.

And that's the point.

He surely understands that his area of expertise, as deep as it is, is very narrow. But he obviously has the capability to understand the science. (Which is more accurately sexuality, not genetics.)

So why - as a potential candidate for president - would he make such a statement that is grounded in such obvious ignorance?

Is "chubby chasing" genetic? That's what I want to know because my son has a thing for circumference.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Of course, we all remember that magical time in our lives, when a young boy or girl, pondering which 'feels' right, takes the fateful step and then chooses to be either gay or straight.

<_</>

Or not.

Actually the number of preadolescent sexual experimentation is actually quite high. It's hard to find the numbers but they are out there. (found it before but it's hiding now)

If I remember correctly the number is upwards of 55% just in males.

That isn't remotely what I'm talking about here.

Do YOU remember the day you CHOSE to be straight ?

[homersapien 11,393]

Thanks for the welcome.

I have read multiple studies on this topic and have questions I don't feel have been completely answered so my doubts remain.

I realize I threw out an easy and obvious example of choice, but it's one I felt everyone would be familiar with. My example probably made me look simplistic in my views.

I agree that Dr. Carson's expertise is not in genetics, but that doesn't undermine his ability to understand the topic to a great degree.

I find it interesting that such an intelligent man is being so quickly dismissed in this thread. He's not a politician so he is going to say things that a handler didn't get to review first. The prison example was probably not a good example and I think he has already acknowledged that and apologized for offending people.

Still working on that Quote thingy.

And that's the point.

He surely understands that his area of expertise, as deep as it is, is very narrow. But he obviously has the capability to understand the science if he bothered to. (Which is more accurately sexuality, not genetics.)

So why - as a potential candidate for president - would he make such a statement that is grounded in such obvious ignorance?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Meant to touch on this earlier, but I know quite a few soldiers that would disagree with that statement. And I am sure that is not your inference, just saying.

As far as your comment relates to gay men, ask them if they are afraid of contracting AIDS. It will give insight into the pride I referenced.

Soldiers DO believe. That's the point. They ARE willing to put their lives on the line, specifically. That's part of the job they signed up for. What I'm talking about is individuals are willing to die for something they aren't.

As for AIDS, that's not the same as being thrown off a tall building by a mob of religious radicals. You're trying to make this far more complex than it needs to be.

Raptor should have said few men or women are prepared to die for their "choices".

Such "beliefs" as you describe worth dying for would be more accurately portrayed as who they feel they really are - their self-conceptualization which includes their basic moral values.

No, I said exactly what i meant.

It's others who are taking what i didn't say and are running with it.

[aubfaninga 16]

Of course, we all remember that magical time in our lives, when a young boy or girl, pondering which 'feels' right, takes the fateful step and then chooses to be either gay or straight.

<_</>

Or not.

Actually the number of preadolescent sexual experimentation is actually quite high. It's hard to find the numbers but they are out there. (found it before but it's hiding now)

If I remember correctly the number is upwards of 55% just in males.

That isn't remotely what I'm talking about here.

Do YOU remember the day you CHOSE to be straight ?

If you look at the percentage of adult homosexuals compared to the percentage of preadolescent experimentation there definitely can be some correlation. or as you put it "Choice".

Do you remember the day you chose to quit looking at inappropriate aged girls? At some point I made the "choice" but I can't tell you the exact time or date. I know for a fact that I was not "born that way".

[AURaptor 1,125]

If you look at the percentage of adult homosexuals compared to the percentage of preadolescent experimentation there definitely can be some correlation. or as you put it "Choice".

Do you remember the day you chose to quit looking at inappropriate aged girls? At some point I made the "choice" but I can't tell you the exact time or date. I know for a fact that I was not "born that way".

Interest in the opposite sex is , imo , hardwired into males. I can't speak as to why gay men are gay, but your question is kinda ridiculous, as it intermixes social limits on very real biological and evolutionary matters.

As I age, my interest in women changes. But the interest in females remains that... an interest in females.

[homersapien 11,393]

Raptor should have said few men or women are prepared to die for their "choices".

Such "beliefs" as you describe worth dying for would be more accurately portrayed as who they feel they really are - their self-conceptualization which includes their basic moral values.

No, I said exactly what i meant.

It's others who are taking what i didn't say and are running with it.

Just trying to help...

Seems to me the word choice would better circumvent the confusion.

[homersapien 11,393]

Thanks for the welcome.

I have read multiple studies on this topic and have questions I don't feel have been completely answered so my doubts remain.

I realize I threw out an easy and obvious example of choice, but it's one I felt everyone would be familiar with. My example probably made me look simplistic in my views.

I agree that Dr. Carson's expertise is not in genetics, but that doesn't undermine his ability to understand the topic to a great degree.

I find it interesting that such an intelligent man is being so quickly dismissed in this thread. He's not a politician so he is going to say things that a handler didn't get to review first. The prison example was probably not a good example and I think he has already acknowledged that and apologized for offending people.

Still working on that Quote thingy.

And that's the point.

He surely understands that his area of expertise, as deep as it is, is very narrow. But he obviously has the capability to understand the science. (Which is more accurately sexuality, not genetics.)

So why - as a potential candidate for president - would he make such a statement that is grounded in such obvious ignorance?

Is "chubby chasing" genetic? That's what I want to know because my son has a thing for circumference.

Not sure I want to understand what you are talking about.

[aubfaninga 16]

If you look at the percentage of adult homosexuals compared to the percentage of preadolescent experimentation there definitely can be some correlation. or as you put it "Choice".

Do you remember the day you chose to quit looking at inappropriate aged girls? At some point I made the "choice" but I can't tell you the exact time or date. I know for a fact that I was not "born that way".

Interest in the opposite sex is , imo , hardwired into males. I can't speak as to why gay men are gay, but your question is kinda ridiculous, as it intermixes social limits on very real biological and evolutionary matters.

As I age, my interest in women changes. But the interest in females remains that... an interest in females.

I think all angles of looking at this are interesting. Even research into identical twins choosing separate paths always puts fog into the discussion.

[aubfaninga 16]

Thanks for the welcome.

I have read multiple studies on this topic and have questions I don't feel have been completely answered so my doubts remain.

I realize I threw out an easy and obvious example of choice, but it's one I felt everyone would be familiar with. My example probably made me look simplistic in my views.

I agree that Dr. Carson's expertise is not in genetics, but that doesn't undermine his ability to understand the topic to a great degree.

I find it interesting that such an intelligent man is being so quickly dismissed in this thread. He's not a politician so he is going to say things that a handler didn't get to review first. The prison example was probably not a good example and I think he has already acknowledged that and apologized for offending people.

Still working on that Quote thingy.

And that's the point.

He surely understands that his area of expertise, as deep as it is, is very narrow. But he obviously has the capability to understand the science. (Which is more accurately sexuality, not genetics.)

So why - as a potential candidate for president - would he make such a statement that is grounded in such obvious ignorance?

Is "chubby chasing" genetic? That's what I want to know because my son has a thing for circumference.

Not sure I want to understand what you are talking about. <_</>

My son prefers very heavy women and finds skinny women to be a turn off. Was this a "choice"?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Of course, we all remember that magical time in our lives, when a young boy or girl, pondering which 'feels' right, takes the fateful step and then chooses to be either gay or straight.

<_</>

Or not.

Actually the number of preadolescent sexual experimentation is actually quite high. It's hard to find the numbers but they are out there. (found it before but it's hiding now)

If I remember correctly the number is upwards of 55% just in males.

That isn't remotely what I'm talking about here.

Do YOU remember the day you CHOSE to be straight ?

If you look at the percentage of adult homosexuals compared to the percentage of preadolescent experimentation there definitely can be some correlation. or as you put it "Choice".

Do you remember the day you chose to quit looking at inappropriate aged girls? At some point I made the "choice" but I can't tell you the exact time or date. I know for a fact that I was not "born that way".

What are you talking about?

[homersapien 11,393]

If you look at the percentage of adult homosexuals compared to the percentage of preadolescent experimentation there definitely can be some correlation. or as you put it "Choice".

Do you remember the day you chose to quit looking at inappropriate aged girls? At some point I made the "choice" but I can't tell you the exact time or date. I know for a fact that I was not "born that way".

Interest in the opposite sex is , imo , hardwired into males. I can't speak as to why gay men are gay, but your question is kinda ridiculous, as it intermixes social limits on very real biological and evolutionary matters.

As I age, my interest in women changes. But the interest in females remains that... an interest in females.

I think all angles of looking at this are interesting. Even research into identical twins choosing separate paths always puts fog into the discussion.

Not really. In fact, it confirms the proposition that a "genetic" - or biological - component exists.

If one twin is homosexual, the other is something like 10 times more likely to be homosexual than from random chance. (As I recall)