Ben Carson at the AAPA conference

[Boatswain2PA]

This is where the gulf is in this debate. Visitation? Adoption? treatment of domestic partners under the tax laws of the US? Benefits? The right to a committed, loving relationship between two people? I could go on and on as to how LGBT folks are not treated equally under the constitution of the US, 14th Amendment, because of who they are. If they had the same rights as everyone else in our society, we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

BTW, in our democratic society, the definition of marriage is what the people of America say it is. And that is definitely changing in the near future.

 

We had better just agree to disagree on this and move on.

 

There are some issues that need to be worked out, and you listed some of these. These can be fixed by several means (civil unions, wills, living wills, trusts, etc) without changing the definition of marriage.

 

Name a "right" that a heterosexual person has under the 14th amendment that a LGBT doesn't have? Name ANY "right" a heterosexual person has that a LGBT doesn't have?? Please be careful not to confuse a "want" with a "right", because despite what many people "feel", our constitutional "rights" do not include the "right to feel good and get what we want all the time".

 

And we are not supposed to be a democracy. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that democracies never work. We were supposed to be a Republic. Unfortunately we have become more and more democratic....to the point of being DemoKratiK.

 

This is a little off of the topic of Dr. Carson having his voice silenced by the AAPA for his conservative views....

[burnpac]

I understand the difference between a democracy and republic.

 

LGBT people, and all Americans, have the right to be treated equally under the law.

 

This will ultimately be decided by the state legislatures and the SCOTUS.

[TWR]

I heard this morning on national news channel that Ben Carlson will NOT be giving the commencement address at John Hopkins School of Medicine this year for the same reasons as stated in this thread.

[TWR]

OOPS>>> Carson!

[Boatswain2PA]

LGBT people, and all Americans, have the right to be treated equally under the law.

 

This will ultimately be decided by the state legislatures and the SCOTUS.

 

Absolutely. Every single American Citizen has the right to be treated equally under the law. But Dr. Carson, by stating his belief that nobody should be able to change the definition of marriage, was in no way advocating treating anyone different under the law. He was simply stating that no one should be able to change the definition of marriage.

 

You are right that the "gay marriage" legality argument will be eventually decided by the SCOTUS, but it doesn't change the fact that the AAPA caved in to a bunch of liberals who bullied them into silencing Dr. Carson's conservative views. THAT is the issue of this thread.

[Boatswain2PA]

I'll give you another example. I was at the last SEMPA conference and they had a terrific EM physician speak. This guy is a top-notch EM educator who runs a great online CME audio/video course that I personally subscribe to.

From different things he has alluded to during his podcasts, I think he is pretty liberal. I could be wrong, but I think he likes the idea of a centrally controlled medical system, and he has bashed on President Bush a few times. I would bet that if we sat down and had a beer together and talked politics, we would disagree on many, many things.

 

Did any conservative PA's try to get this guy banned from speaking at the SEMPA conference? I doubt it, because while I disagree with him, he doesn't "hurt my feelings". This is what tolerance is. He is entitled to his opinion, and he was there to speak about emergency medicine...which is exactly what he did.

 

Too bad the liberals don't have the same "tolerance" for others with divergent views than themselves.

[physasst]

Absolutely. Every single American Citizen has the right to be treated equally under the law. But Dr. Carson, by stating his belief that nobody should be able to change the definition of marriage, was in no way advocating treating anyone different under the law. He was simply stating that no one should be able to change the definition of marriage.

 

You are right that the "gay marriage" legality argument will be eventually decided by the SCOTUS, but it doesn't change the fact that the AAPA caved in to a bunch of liberals who bullied them into silencing Dr. Carson's conservative views. THAT is the issue of this thread.

 

 

Okay, definition of marriage by whom? If you are implying a religious definition, then you are correct...but then, which religion? Many of us don't care one bit about religion or what religious "values" there are. Now, if you are talking about the legal definition of marriage, which is the real issue here, then yes, we can change that. Now, there are a lot of legitimate arguments here. Is it a states' right's issue? Equal protection clause? etc.etc.etc. No one is angry at Carson for being opposed to gay marriage. Many people are opposed. That's okay. But he chose to vocalize that in an ill advised manner, and now there are consequences. I actually had lunch with my Congressman just a few minutes ago and we were talking about this very issue, although the reason we were having lunch was to discuss the new GOP proposals in the House to revise the SGR with a new quality based fix. It came out of the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees, and would basically change how Medicare reimburses physicians by requiring each specialty to develop quality and efficiency measures to standardizee reimbursements based on performance. IE; pay for performance. Somewhat interesting to watch the GOP evolution on this one. I think it's a good idea (bit of a thread drift). I worked on the ACO part of the ACA, and so tying payments to quality is something I think is a good thing.

[Boatswain2PA]

I don't know of a single culture which has included homosexuality within it's definition of marriage. There are several cultures which have included polygamy, but never homosexuality. Western tradition, from it's beginnings with the Greeks, have said marriage is between a man and a wife. While homosexuality was certainly prevalent, it was never included in the definition of marriage. This traditional definition of marriage has lasted for 3000 years.

 

Yes, we can legally change the definition of marriage. And you should be free to try to do this, and free to voice your opinion without repercussion. But why isn't Dr. Carson afforded those same rights? Because liberals are bullies, and they control the message via the media and academia.

 

Again, what exactly did Dr. Carson say that was ill advised? He simply stood up for the traditional definition of marriage and said nobody should be able to change that. He said nothing, at all, derogatory about LGBTs or any other population group.

 

He did NOT say that LGBTs have lesser value. He did NOT say that they are the same as pedophiles. He said NOTHING derogatory.

 

But a bunch of liberals who have been taught to be hyper-sensitive to anything conservative got their "feelings hurt". Waaaaa!!!!! Just because somebody says something that hurts your feelings does not mean you should try to silence them.

[JoelleK]

Wow! This is turning into something sadder than I could have ever thought possible. Unbelievable!

[CAdamsPAC]

I don't know of a single culture which has included homosexuality within it's definition of marriage. There are several cultures which have included polygamy, but never homosexuality. Western tradition, from it's beginnings with the Greeks, have said marriage is between a man and a wife. While homosexuality was certainly prevalent, it was never included in the definition of marriage. This traditional definition of marriage has lasted for 3000 years.

 

Yes, we can legally change the definition of marriage. And you should be free to try to do this, and free to voice your opinion without repercussion. But why isn't Dr. Carson afforded those same rights? Because liberals are bullies, and they control the message via the media and academia.

 

Again, what exactly did Dr. Carson say that was ill advised? He simply stood up for the traditional definition of marriage and said nobody should be able to change that. He said nothing, at all, derogatory about LGBTs or any other population group.

 

He did NOT say that LGBTs have lesser value. He did NOT say that they are the same as pedophiles. He said NOTHING derogatory.

 

But a bunch of liberals who have been taught to be hyper-sensitive to anything conservative got their "feelings hurt". Waaaaa!!!!! Just because somebody says something that hurts your feelings does not mean you should try to silence them.

 

Bravo Zulu , Shipmate!!!

[physasst]

I don't know of a single culture which has included homosexuality within it's definition of marriage. There are several cultures which have included polygamy, but never homosexuality. Western tradition, from it's beginnings with the Greeks, have said marriage is between a man and a wife. While homosexuality was certainly prevalent, it was never included in the definition of marriage. This traditional definition of marriage has lasted for 3000 years.

 

Yes, we can legally change the definition of marriage. And you should be free to try to do this, and free to voice your opinion without repercussion. But why isn't Dr. Carson afforded those same rights? Because liberals are bullies, and they control the message via the media and academia.

 

Again, what exactly did Dr. Carson say that was ill advised? He simply stood up for the traditional definition of marriage and said nobody should be able to change that. He said nothing, at all, derogatory about LGBTs or any other population group.

 

He did NOT say that LGBTs have lesser value. He did NOT say that they are the same as pedophiles. He said NOTHING derogatory.

 

But a bunch of liberals who have been taught to be hyper-sensitive to anything conservative got their "feelings hurt". Waaaaa!!!!! Just because somebody says something that hurts your feelings does not mean you should try to silence them.

 

It doesn't matter what he said, or what you think he said. What matters is the overall perception of what he said..the majority perceived it as bad. That's what matters. The perception was that he associated LGBT people with other illegal acts. Also, note that he said "it doesn't matter what they are"...note the "what". He did not use the term "who" he said "what". He did not identify them as people but as lesser, an object, a group that could be labeled and discarded, not people with feelings, emotions, dreams, and aspirations.... Words matter. EVERY word matters. I found that almost more insulting than the other part.

 

Also, I find it somewhat ironic that you are telling us all that liberals should have thicker skin and not have our "feelings hurt", when at the same time you are bemoaning how the media and academia controls the message and doesn't allow conservatives to speak (which really was amusing and gave me a good laugh, so thank you). I seem to remember something about a pot and a kettle...hmm.

[Boatswain2PA]

Wow! This is turning into something sadder than I could have ever thought possible. Unbelievable!

 

Can you reply with something other than emotions? Can you use logic to explain your position about why Dr. Carson should have been removed (or have to have removed himself) as speaker?

[Boatswain2PA]

It doesn't matter what he said, or what you think he said. What matters is the overall perception of what he said..the majority perceived it as bad. That's what matters. The perception was that he associated LGBT people with other illegal acts.

 

It doesn't matter what he said? How can it possibly "not matter" what he said? Oh, wait....because you (and others) have been spoon-fed an "overall perception of what he said" by the liberal media.

 

Yes, the PERCEPTION is that he associated LGBT people with illegal acts. Where did this PERCEPTION come from? It came from the liberal media who fed it to you over and over and over and over again. And you drank it....it's called KOOL-AID!!

 

Also, note that he said "it doesn't matter what they are"...note the "what". He did not use the term "who" he said "what". He did not identify them as people but as lesser, an object, a group that could be labeled and discarded, not people with feelings, emotions, dreams, and aspirations.... Words matter. EVERY word matters. I found that almost more insulting than the other part.

 

Wait, first you say "it doesn't matter what he said"....but then you point out that he said "what" not "who". Really? You're grasping at straws to find a reason to be mad at him. Do you REALLY think he thinks LGBT's are a "what"? So first you say it "doesn't matter what he said", but now you say "EVERY word matters". Of course, this is after 10 pages of me repeating his words over and over and over, and you still no listening to his words.

 

He said nobody has the right to change the definition of marriage. That's what he said, and that's what he meant. The only derogatory thing there is in your imagination.

 

Also, I find it somewhat ironic that you are telling us all that liberals should have thicker skin and not have our "feelings hurt", when at the same time you are bemoaning how the media and academia controls the message and doesn't allow conservatives to speak (which really was amusing and gave me a good laugh, so thank you). I seem to remember something about a pot and a kettle...hmm.

 

That is because you don't understand the difference between discourse and emotions. I don't have my "feelings hurt" by the liberal media. I am saddened about where it has taken my country, but I don't get my feelings hurt about it. This allows me to still use logic.

 

Can you?

[JoelleK]

Can you reply with something other than emotions? Can you use logic to explain your position about why Dr. Carson should have been removed (or have to have removed himself) as speaker?

 

I already have...it's not my issue that you can't see it or figure it out.

[physasst]

It doesn't matter what he said? How can it possibly "not matter" what he said? Oh, wait....because you (and others) have been spoon-fed an "overall perception of what he said" by the liberal media.

 

Yes, the PERCEPTION is that he associated LGBT people with illegal acts. Where did this PERCEPTION come from? It came from the liberal media who fed it to you over and over and over and over again. And you drank it....it's called KOOL-AID!!

 

 

 

Wait, first you say "it doesn't matter what he said"....but then you point out that he said "what" not "who". Really? You're grasping at straws to find a reason to be mad at him. Do you REALLY think he thinks LGBT's are a "what"? So first you say it "doesn't matter what he said", but now you say "EVERY word matters". Of course, this is after 10 pages of me repeating his words over and over and over, and you still no listening to his words.

 

He said nobody has the right to change the definition of marriage. That's what he said, and that's what he meant. The only derogatory thing there is in your imagination.

 

 

 

That is because you don't understand the difference between discourse and emotions. I don't have my "feelings hurt" by the liberal media. I am saddened about where it has taken my country, but I don't get my feelings hurt about it. This allows me to still use logic.

 

Can you?

 

I don't get emotional about any of this stuff. Politics is nothing more than a game. It always has been. It's good fun actually. I've advised members from both parties (and still do actually) because while I tend to lean liberal, I can actually agree with the GOP on a number of issues. I used to be a registered republican, but they sort of left most of us moderates behind. As far as logic, well, I will only say that it is in the eye of the beholder. I don't mean that as an insult, but until you can actually understand the issue that is presented by the other side, and not woefully disregard it, or worse, dismiss it as unimportant or irrelevant, but actually attempt to really understand it and try to process it, you can't really logically argue for either side. It becomes nothing more than a regurgitation of talking points....something the boys over at Faux News know all too well (MSNBC isn't much better to be honest).

 

One of the biggest problems in our current system is this blind ideology. This creation of ideologues with little attempt to understand the issue.

 

As far as your other points, you seem to have not read my post. I care deeply about what Dr. Carson said, because I analyze every word almost everyone says (it annoys my wife), but to the general public or to organizations who would care to invite or not invite him to speak, present, kiss babies, whatever, it is the PERCEPTION of what he said that matters. Does that make sense? I can attempt to explain it again if needed.

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

[Boatswain2PA]

I already have...it's not my issue that you can't see it or figure it out.

 

What you and others are failing or refusing to see is that this DOES and DID affect some people on a daily basis - both PAs and their patients - those who identify as LBGT. Whether he meant to group them or compare them is irrelevant - he did. If he used racial or disability related comparisons there would be no question of him not speaking. What makes those groups any different than LBGT? He is an intelligent man and could have used many other ways to convey his support for his definition of what he believes marriage to be. He chose to use the words he did and that is unfortunate. No one is saying that he can't have his beliefs but we all know when we are in certain positions of leadership we must be careful of the words we choose and the tone in which we use them. Words have power whether we intend for them to have or not. Over the last few months he has proven that he is using otherwise bipartisan platforms for his own agenda that shouldn't be used as such and what would stop him from doing the same at the conference? We only know his past-precedence for which he alone is responsible for setting. He noted himself that in the current climate, his presence would be a distraction from the overarching goal/reason for the conference. He withdrew for similar reasons from other venues.

 

You must be an intelligent person to be where you are in life but...if you are not LBGT how on earth can you say he did or did not insult them? If an LBGT person feels insulted by his words then yes, he did in fact insult them. End of story!

 

You are also missing the message. At this point, many people really don't care what Dr. Carson's position is on marriage. It is none of my business, just as your definition is none of my business and my definition is none of yours. It doesn't matter. What does matter is how he chose to defend his position and the hurtful words he used to compare groups who you/he/others say want to change the definition of it. He grouped together normal human beings and 2 groups who are illegal and abusive. It is an insult to anyone who identifies as LBGT or anyone with any empathetic characteristics. He belittled an entire group of people for no just cause because there are a million other words he could have chosen to defend his position and NO ONE WOULD HAVE CARED!!!!

 

You are never going to change my mind. I am never going to change yours. But I hope that you are able to see at some point that it is not up to you to tell people how they can or do feel when someone says something to/about/offensive to them. It doesn't matter if you have thick skin or thin skin or anything in between; hurtful words hurt.

 

The only logical point you brought up is that Dr. Carson has used a bipartisan setting to push his conservative agenda. Everything else you have said has involved twisting his words, or more appropriately inserting YOUR VERSION of the meaning of his words into what he said so that you can justify your hurt feelings. That isn't logic.

 

 

 

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I don't get emotional about any of this stuff. Politics is nothing more than a game. It always has been. It's good fun actually. I've advised members from both parties (and still do actually) because while I tend to lean liberal, I can actually agree with the GOP on a number of issues. I used to be a registered republican, but they sort of left most of us moderates behind. As far as logic, well, I will only say that it is in the eye of the beholder. I don't mean that as an insult, but until you can actually understand the issue that is presented by the other side, and not woefully disregard it, or worse, dismiss it as unimportant or irrelevant, but actually attempt to really understand it and try to process it, you can't really logically argue for either side. It becomes nothing more than a regurgitation of talking points....something the boys over at Faux News know all too well (MSNBC isn't much better to be honest).

 

One of the biggest problems in our current system is this blind ideology. This creation of ideologues with little attempt to understand the issue.

 

As far as your other points, you seem to have not read my post. I care deeply about what Dr. Carson said, because I analyze every word almost everyone says (it annoys my wife), but to the general public or to organizations who would care to invite or not invite him to speak, present, kiss babies, whatever, it is the PERCEPTION of what he said that matters. Does that make sense? I can attempt to explain it again if needed.

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

 

If you are not emotional about this, why do you keep inserting different meaning into his words? I will repeat it for the hundreth time: Dr. Carson said nothing derogatory about any population group. He simply said that nobody, no population group, should be able to change the definition of marriage. Why do you, and others, keep insisting that what he said was so "wrong" that he his voice must be silenced?

 

I think I do have a very good understanding of the "other side", although I do not consider proponents of "gay marriage" the "other side." I understand why they are for it. Please note, I have never once stated my position on whether or not we should allow it. That is my personal opinion, and will stay personal.

 

What I have vigoriously fought for is to have people question WHY they reacted so viciously to shut this man's voice down. He said NOTHING derogatory about anyone. He hasn't bombed any buildings (by the way, I heard Bill Ayers has retired from teaching in Chicago....I wonder if he visited Boston today). Let people SPEAK. If they speak nonsense then nobody will listen. Dr. Carson is an incredibly smart man and never speaks nonsense, that is why he had such a powerful voice. Well....until the liberals have risen up to silence him.

 

Of course, you can speak nonsense if all you do is play on people's emotions. History is full of these people: from the snake-oil salesmen of the old west, Hitler, the KKK, the New Black Panthers. You can baffle a lot of people with bull$hit, especially if you take away the voice of the opposition.

[ljgiblin]

Just my two cents having read this thread since its inception and being a big fan of Ben Carson as a pediatric surgeon, live in the Baltimore area and admire his skills in separating conjoined twins which I have found fascinating...

You will never win an argument by calling someone else's thinking illogical. Everyone thinks they think logically. No one thinks to oneself, oh let me think illogically about this right now and then write about my illogical thinking. No. Each person who has written on this thread thinks they are writing very logically.

This is an emotional debate. People on both sides have legitimate points and concerns. Dr. Carson is entitled to his opinion and has the right to share his opinion. He also has the right to withdraw from the conference which he has done in order to save the conference from the controversy. Once more I think this is something admirable on his part.

Wikipedia quotes Dr. Carson as saying, 'What I would like to see more often in this nation is an open and intelligent conversation, not people just casting aspersions at each other. I mean, it's unbelievable to me the way people act like third graders. And if somebody doesn't agree with them, they're this and they're that and, you know – it comes from both sides. And it's just so infantile.'

This is something I'd like to see more often in this nation as well...are we having an open and intelligent conversation here?

[Boatswain2PA]

Yes. Discussions don't have to be "nice" to be civil. That is the whole point. People who are proponents of changing the definition of marriage won't find Dr. Carson's comments very "nice", but they certainly were civil. And that is why it is a damn shame that he is being silenced.

 

Nobody is throwing dispersions at anyone.

[ljgiblin]

casting dispersions

 

putting judgements on or saying things which will result in negative ideas and thoughts about a person or topic and possibly dissuade one from thinking positively about that person or thing.

 

that's not going on here?

[Boatswain2PA]

Well....lots of dispersions about Dr. Carson. Other than that, no!

[ljgiblin]

From what I've read, casting dispersions have occurred against Dr. Carson, against the media, against those who support gay marriage, against those who don't support gay marriage,...

I'm not talking nice v. civil...I'm talking telling someone they are illogical, only using emotion, etc...

I actually agree with you about Dr. Carson but I am concerned that some of your arguments are too personal and make the Dr. Carson got a bad rap side look overly angry...that's all. Engage the other side by asking questions, acknowledging some valid points and then make your own...

[Boatswain2PA]

From what I've read, casting dispersions have occurred against Dr. Carson, against the media, against those who support gay marriage, against those who don't support gay marriage,...

I'm not talking nice v. civil...I'm talking telling someone they are illogical, only using emotion, etc...

I actually agree with you about Dr. Carson but I am concerned that some of your arguments are too personal and make the Dr. Carson got a bad rap side look overly angry...that's all. Engage the other side by asking questions, acknowledging some valid points and then make your own...

 

Perhaps your right. I just tend to have thicker skin than most people. Call me illogical and I won't get my feelings hurt, I'll try to improve my logic, or at least how I display it.

 

But bottom line....Dr. Carson is one of a long list of conservative voices to be silenced by liberal bullies.

[CAdamsPAC]

It doesn't matter what he said, or what you think he said. What matters is the overall perception of what he said..the majority perceived it as bad. That's what matters. The perception was that he associated LGBT people with other illegal acts. Also, note that he said "it doesn't matter what they are"...note the "what". He did not use the term "who" he said "what". He did not identify them as people but as lesser, an object, a group that could be labeled and discarded, not people with feelings, emotions, dreams, and aspirations.... Words matter. EVERY word matters. I found that almost more insulting than the other part.

 

Also, I find it somewhat ironic that you are telling us all that liberals should have thicker skin and not have our "feelings hurt", when at the same time you are bemoaning how the media and academia controls the message and doesn't allow conservatives to speak (which really was amusing and gave me a good laugh, so thank you). I seem to remember something about a pot and a kettle...hmm.

 

I don't know how you can state "a majority" felt offended without presenting actual numbers versus a vocal minority with substantial media access/support complaining over their perceptions of Doctor Carson's words.