Ben Carson at the AAPA conference

[andersenpa]

Does he equate homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia? Clearly no.

 

 

He made a politically stupid comparison- by defining three groups who in his mind take a similar stance on an issue (marriage), using 2 groups whose activities are illegal (pedophilia and beastiality) and one that is not (homosexuality).

 

Same sex marriage is the most discussed but I hadn't seen news on people promoting marrying animals. Perhaps those are on different websites.

[JoelleK]

If you watch the Youtube video I linked (starts at 1:30 by the way), it's clear he doesn't. It's all about the sanctity of marriage in his view. And as someone else mentioned, about half of the country shares his view.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am mine. This video is him defending his original words. In my opinion, this is a comparison/grouping of homosexuals, pedophiles, and those who engage in bestiality. I stand by my argument.

And no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition, so it’s not something that’s against gays, it’s agianst anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society–it has significant ramifications.”

[GREEN]

His statements are quite dehumanizing and defamatory to the LGBT community who already are known to suffer from inequality in receiving healthcare (way too many studies to cite but feel free to do your own search). He is not upholding the following: I will hold as my primary responsibility the health, safety, welfare and dignity of all human beings. What he said certainly goes against that as he is not upholding the dignity of all human beings by his comparisons. THis is just one example.

 

Again, these are my views and I am not alone in my views nor do I expect all others to agree with my views.

 

He listed groups, he didn't compare them, that's where you're confused.

[GREEN]

He made a politically stupid comparison- by defining three groups who in his mind take a similar stance on an issue (marriage), using 2 groups whose activities are illegal (pedophilia and beastiality) and one that is not (homosexuality).

 

Same sex marriage is the most discussed but I hadn't seen news on people promoting marrying animals. Perhaps those are on different websites.

 

You are assuming this. You know what happens when you assume, you make an...

[JoelleK]

He listed groups, he didn't compare them, that's where you're confused.

 

I'm not confused...I just disagree with you.

[andersenpa]

You are assuming this. You know what happens when you assume, you make an...

 

 

His comparison is about groups that have a unifying commonality- they want to change the defintion of marriage. It is not an assumption, it is his assertion.

 

"And no group....get to change the definition"

[discogenic]

He made a politically stupid comparison- by defining three groups who in his mind take a similar stance on an issue (marriage), using 2 groups whose activities are illegal (pedophilia and beastiality) and one that is not (homosexuality).

 

Same sex marriage is the most discussed but I hadn't seen news on people promoting marrying animals. Perhaps those are on different websites.

 

Agreed that his words were clumsy, particularly for the political arena where the opposing side will try to skewer you no matter what you say. However, he makes clear that he isn't anti-gay. He is anti-gay marriage, and he shares that view with a large segment of the population. He's not even against civil union which affords legal rights. He wishes to protect what he and millions of others view as a pillar of our society. For this he shouldn't be allowed to speak at the AAPA convention?

[CAdamsPAC]

If you watch the Youtube video I linked (starts at 1:30 by the way), it's clear he doesn't. It's all about the sanctity of marriage in his view. And as someone else mentioned, about half of the country shares his view.

 

Never let the truth ,get in the way of a good story........

[andersenpa]

Agreed that his words were clumsy, particularly for the political arena where the opposing side will try to skewer you no matter what you say. However, he makes clear that he isn't anti-gay. He is anti-gay marriage, and he shares that view with a large segment of the population. He's not even against civil union which affords legal rights. He wishes to protect what he and millions of others view as a pillar of our society. For this he shouldn't be allowed to speak at the AAPA convention?

 

I don't care if he speaks there. The AAPA can do what they wan't, and I'm a member. I will interpret what I want from his talk if I see it (I'll be in DC).

The issue is whether the BOD of a provate organization feels that he represents them and their constituents, or if they will lose members/$$$$ as a result of his speaking.

 

Also, it's hard to compartmentalize being against a group of people and against something that they deserve as a civil/human/economic right. If the latter affords them protections or benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to as a law obeying member of society, then the loss of those rights is punitive. By that definition it opposes the entire group.

 

But that's a larger issue that won't be solved by the AAPA!

[GREEN]

Agreed that his words were clumsy,

 

Yep, clumsy. Had he said this instead:

 

“Marriage is between a man and a woman, it’s a well established fundamental pillar of society,” Carson told Hannity. “And no group, be they Tomato Farmers of America, be they Geologists, be they people who believe in Hardcover Books Are Better Than Soft Cover Books, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition, so it’s not something that’s against gays, it’s agianst anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society–it has significant ramifications.”

 

By the basic laws of the English language we can see that these are not comparisons to each other.

[True Anomaly]

You conflate the AAPA with an organization that controls/supervises the professional conduct or positions of PAs, which it is not. AAPA is an organization that serves as an advoccate for it's MEMBERS ,not the individual members of the profession. So AAPA may have as many oaths and secret handshakes as it pleases for it's MEMBERS , but they don't or aren't applicable to other PAs.

 

Actually, my understanding is that the AAPA is the representative body for ALL PA's, not just dues-paying members. I'm sure one of our fellow forum members who has served on the BOD or even the former presidents who hang around here can better attest to that

[jsfelder0417]

Whether I agree with Dr. Carson's point of view is irrelevant. Do his beliefs negate his accomplishments or his skills as a surgeon? NO. If you exclude everyone in the world that doesn't think exactly like you, you will have a lonely existence.

[physasst]

Agreed that his words were clumsy, particularly for the political arena where the opposing side will try to skewer you no matter what you say. However, he makes clear that he isn't anti-gay. He is anti-gay marriage, and he shares that view with a large segment of the population. He's not even against civil union which affords legal rights. He wishes to protect what he and millions of others view as a pillar of our society. For this he shouldn't be allowed to speak at the AAPA convention?

 

Yes, words have consequences. (lord have I learned that in the political arena) It's okay to think some things, it's okay to believe in things, but when you make statements in a political atmosphere on a charged subject with hypersensitivity on BOTH sides, you need to choose your words carefully. They have consequences. He should not be allowed to speak. He chose.....poorly.

 

Reminds me of one of the greatest quotes of all time. After John Adams had insulted a group in the 1st Continental Congress (he was good at that, a little...temperamental shall we say) he was speaking to Franklin who was trying to encourage him to use diplomacy. Adams asked something along the lines of whether or not Franklin believed in speaking his mind. IIRC, it was "Do you not believe in saying what you think?"....to which Franklin replied..."No, no, I am quite opposed. Thinking aloud has been responsible for much of man's misery". Truer words have never been spoken, and I have to work hard myself to follow that axiom.

 

Simple fact is....words have consequences. He spoke...he insulted an entire group of practicing PAs, patients, etc. He could have been more diplomatic and said that his faith dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that he doesn't support same sex marriage. But, no, he had to bring up pedophilia and bestiality and make a dramatic point that was insulting to a group of people. Words have consequences....

 

I could care less about Ben Carson. I could care less about how skilled of a surgeon he is or what accomplishments he's had.....I've always thought that he was an egotist who thought way, WAY too highly of himself (typical surgeon) and that was after reading half of his book. To be honest, I thought it was so bad, I couldn't finish it. I will be in DC, and whether he's there or not, I won't listen to his speech. Nothing he says bears any interest for me. I'm actually looking more forward to the addresses at the first DC meeting I'm at in early May. That (AAMC) and the Academy Health meeting in June both have better keynote (or rather more interesting) speakers. To me at least.

[drholmes]

I don't believe Dr. Carson was lumping all the mentioned lifestyles as objectionable or equally objectionable in his mind. I think he just picked groups that identify with a non-traditional view of sexuality / sexual expression. These are moral issues - and, when do we want our legislators or our courts defining moral issues for us? As a free people we have already stated that we did not want our government doing that in our Bill of Rights. So, groups with minority viewpoints do not get to re-define tried and true moral norms and force them on the rest of the populace in our society. I did not agree with DOMA when it was passed for reasons stated above. But, since it is the law, in the legislative world DOMA is in its infancy. Therefore, a recent law restates that a majority of the populace's viewpoint is such that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. For such groups to do an end-around and backdoor a minority viewpoint through the courts is not the way our country was set up. Therefore, on this technicality alone, as a citizen of this great country; I have issue with this entire platform.

 

But, I digress...

 

Ben Carson is an accomplished physician and represents his profession well. I do not think that the AAPA can please everyone. They should attempt to support their constituency in a way that reflects the desires of that membership - to the best of their ability. That ability is not always going to match up with everyone's perspectives or proclivities, or practices. Let him speak, I am hoping to be there.

 

I do not have problems with individuals. I love and respect everyone that does not try to harm or attempt to limit the freedoms of my family. Even when that happens, forgiveness is a wonderfully cleansing thing! Do I always agree with their perspectives or proclivities, or practices - absolutely not. Let me present an analogy: I would expect that if I wanted to call myself a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and openly not support that organizations leadership; I would also expect to be drummed out of that society. So, in the environment of God (Morality), The Constitution of the United States of America, and DOMA (for better or worse), don't tread on the freedoms of all to placate a few. If you want to practice something different than a particular society allows, supports, or condones please expect some resistance to that practice.

[rcdavis]

Physassist,

Obama, Clinton, Reid, palossi, Fonda, Et all have consistently offended and insulted me ( a white, Conservative-libertarian, southern, baptist male.. U know, the only group in America which is denied the ability to be offended or insulted).. Yet multiple orginazations continue on inviting them to speak?

 

The fact that SOME folks are offended and insulted does NOT PRECLUDE the rest of us from wanting to hear the offending party....

Or is it, as always, a one way street wherein it is only the offended which can demand recourse are the liberals?

[GMarie]

I think it's a shame that an individual's right to free speech is only really supported when it is a liberal speaking about their liberal beliefs. While I do not fully agree with Dr. Carson (personally, I think all marriages should be civil unions and the church should be completely removed), I do respect his beliefs and his numerous achievements. I'm not sure this would be an issue if the situation was reversed - i.e. if he had come out in full support of gay marriage, would conservative PAs be calling for him to be removed from the conference? Maybe, maybe not.

[Iain1028]

I would love to trade Ben Carson for......

[GREEN]

He gone...

http://www.aapa.org/news_and_publications/news/item.aspx?id=5955

[andersenpa]

I think it's a shame that an individual's right to free speech is only really supported when it is a liberal speaking about their liberal beliefs. While I do not fully agree with Dr. Carson (personally, I think all marriages should be civil unions and the church should be completely removed), I do respect his beliefs and his numerous achievements. I'm not sure this would be an issue if the situation was reversed - i.e. if he had come out in full support of gay marriage, would conservative PAs be calling for him to be removed from the conference? Maybe, maybe not.

 

His free speech is not being infringed. He is free to speak on the street corner or any news outlet that will have him. Just like you don't have a "right" to be hired at any given PA position, he doesn't have a "right" to be a paid speaker.

[andersenpa]

Physassist,

Obama, Clinton, Reid, palossi, Fonda, Et all have consistently offended and insulted me ( a white, Conservative-libertarian, southern, baptist male.. U know, the only group in America which is denied the ability to be offended or insulted).. Yet multiple orginazations continue on inviting them to speak?

 

The fact that SOME folks are offended and insulted does NOT PRECLUDE the rest of us from wanting to hear the offending party....

Or is it, as always, a one way street wherein it is only the offended which can demand recourse are the liberals?

 

well Davis there's a lid for every pot. you sure won't see that list of folks being invited to the Heritage Foundation....because the individual does not represent the mission/values of the organization. Nothing wrong with that. seems like freedom, something we all (should) support. AAPA is free to choose or deny whoever they want, no?

 

The supporters of Carson who feel this was a slight should not rejoin the AAPA and hurt them $$$$ if they want to show their response.

[GMarie]

His free speech is not being infringed. He is free to speak on the street corner or any news outlet that will have him. Just like you don't have a "right" to be hired at any given PA position, he doesn't have a "right" to be a paid speaker.

I didn't get the impression that he was going to be speaking about gay marriage at the conference. As jsfelder said, if you exclude everyone in the world who doesn't think the same way as you, you are going to be very lonely. It doesn't matter now, anyway, as he has pulled out of the conference.

[Swarley]

So if I decided to join the AAPA can I expect the AAPA and the hypersensitive, can't-wait-to-be-offended crowd to tell a well-accomplished practitioner that his deliberately misconstrued statement about [insert issue important to the right] disqualifies him from giving a speech that would likely be about medicine not his politics?

 

If so count me out. All we need is another hypersensitive organization that cowers when the left or the right make noise. How can I expect an organization that caves so readily to stand up to those that would hurt or hold back the PA profession?

[cupojava]

Very sad to see that a doc-PA team who have been "voted by fellow PAs who know their work" has to withdraw from the conference. I hope folks are not missing the point here--Dr Carson is not the only recipient of the award-his PA colleague is also a recipient. He was not asked to speak on gay marriage; "he was asked to address the conference on the role and value of PAs in healthcare." Carol James, PA-C has been with Dr. Carson for at least 16+ years of her 20+ career at Hopkins. If you are in this forum, Carol James, I'm sorry to see you withdraw. I was looking forward to seeing you there!

[Medic207]

So the liberal left PAs have successfully bullied the AAPA into dropping him? Oh no don't patronize yourselves with that much credit! That had nothing to do with it! I do not think a man of Carson's stature would be bullied. It goes much deeper than that.

 

Sounds like it is cleverly disguised that he dropped out. In another words, forces at play aka: The BO government is afraid of Carson and the common sense healthcare principles and conservatism he speaks of. I bet you anything there was pressure from the HHS secretary on the AAPA, that threatened the AAPA would be "on the menu" if Carson was given opportunity to speak. Of course she would be "happy" to be the headliner...

 

Oh man the AAPA has just been taken to the woodshed, Cory Booker style!

 

There is no denying that the AAPA is now a fully committed leftist organization riding the Obama progressive wave.

 

I Recently heard the AAPA president remark "if your not at the table, your on the menu." Boy what a crock, the AAPA is not at the table, they are in the lap of the dictator like a white Persian cat in the lap of an evil overlord.

[THE.PA.PAC]

Consenting adults ought to do as they please. It's like The Smiths: You'll like them either way because they're good. And if not them, then Joy Division. And it keeps going. That's it. Plus George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, and everyone else who thinks rationally, i.e., there isn't a Santa Clause in the sky to pass judgment on others because "He's jealous." Sorry if that offends you, but why does it offend you? You believe in science for your profession, so why is this any different?