# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Gay Rights

## Unregistered

Are Rand and Ron against gay rights? Some things they have said would suggest they were.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I think they would prefer to remove government from marriage and let individuals define their marriages with their own private contracts if they desire to do so.  Interestingly, Alabama seems to be going in this direction and I give them a lot of credit for this move. 

Otherwise, I'm not sure they support some kind of special protection under the law more than any other citizen from so-called 'hate crimes'.

----------


## specsaregood

> Are Rand and Ron against gay rights? Some things they have said would suggest they were.


They are more inclined to say there is not such thing as "gay rights".  You don't get special rights because you are gay.

----------


## phill4paul

What is this "right" you speak of? Please define it.

----------


## pcosmar

Some Ron Paul Quotes on rights,





> “Rights mean you have a right to your life. You have a right to your liberty, and you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor....I, in a way, don’t like to use those terms: gay rights, women’s rights, minority rights, religious rights. There’s only one type of right. It’s the right to your liberty.”





> “You have to remember, rights don't come in groups we shouldn't have 'gay rights'; rights come as individuals, and we wouldn't have this major debate going on. It would be behavior that would count, not what person belongs to what group.”





> “Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less. ”

----------


## tod evans

"Rights" ain't free $#@!..........

----------


## Sola_Fide

No such thing as "gay rights".

----------


## Origanalist

Clowns to the left of me....

----------


## acptulsa

> Are Rand and Ron against gay rights? Some things they have said would suggest they were.


What things?  Things that make you think they would 'give you no more rights' than any one else?

Correct.  No more rights than anyone else.  And no fewer either.  Someone wants to persecute you because you're gay?  They won't condone it.  You want to persecute someone for refusing to bake you a nude man cake for your dual bachelor party?  They won't condone that, either.

If you want to be free--no more free than any one else, mind you, but you want to truly be free and want everyone else to be free as well--the Pauls are for you.  If you want to lord something over someone else, they aren't for you.




> 'Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty.  Now the greatest aid that I know of  that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of "liberty".  What might be one class's liberty might be another class's poison.  I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to.  Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work.  So the question arises, "How much liberty can I get away with?"
> 
> 'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give.  That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own.'--_Will Rogers_

----------


## osan

> Are Rand and Ron against gay rights? Some things they have said would suggest they were.


How could they, or anyone else, be for or against something that does not exist?

I do believe it would benefit people to use language more appropriately. Semantically speaking, the term "gay rights" refers to rights particular to gays.  Those rights, of course, do not exist.  There are, however, the _human rights_ to which all people hold claim, including gayfolk.  A more accurate term, then, might be "equal rights of gays".  Yes, it is more of a mouthful, but as I always reiterate unto the rolling eyes of many: words matter.  The ones we use and the ways in which we use them.  And, as I would have predicted even 30 years ago as a young man, "gay rights" has been derailed from its original use and meaning from "equal rights for gay people" to "special dispensations for gay people".  So sorry, but that fails most spectacularly, as do all those who subscribe to this ridiculous notion.

Gayfolk share the precise same basic human rights of all other people.  They do not, however, hold any valid claim to those special privileges they have come to demand of the non-gay world.  For example, they widely demand not just tolerance as originally sought; they then demanded acceptance, and thereafter the adoration of the world.  They demand not to have their feelings hurt by the unflattering opinions of others.  They demand that all children be taught without exception that "gay is OK".  And so forth and so on.  So sorry, but to none of that are you entitled.  Much less so are you entitled to the services of men with guns and acting under colored authority of the so-called "state imprimatur" to harass, beat, cage, financially obliterate, and ultimately kill those who hurt your feelings or otherwise displease you.  Your right to be homosexual does not trump another's right to disagree with your lifestyle choice or to even despise and hate you for how you live and what you do.  Freedom and equality can be a real bitch that way and if you want to be treated like the rest, you have to take the lumps the rest of us must endure.  That is life among one's fellows.  It's not always bunnies, light, and blowjobs.  Get over it and stop attempting to bully people into loving you because it will never happen that way, but will serve only to cause people to entrench against you.  But do as you please, of course - just do not be surprised if your strategy of bully force blows up in your face, resulting in even more open opposition and hatred.  Choice is always yours.

----------


## CaptUSA

Are gay people human?  If so, the Paul's fully support all individual human rights.

How narrowly one must observe the world to bestow "rights" based on a single characteristic.  Rights are inherent_ in spite of_ any characteristics.

----------


## acptulsa

> Are gay people human?  If so, the Paul's fully support all individual human rights.
> 
> How narrowly one must observe the world to bestow "rights" based on a single characteristic.  Rights are inherent_ in spite of_ any characteristics.


This.  And so it must be.

Only tyrants speak of granting or bestowing rights, and only tyrants play some of us off against the others by talking about special rights for certain groups.  This doesn't mean libertarians aren't interested in insuring gays don't get, for example, screwed by insurance companies that will begrudgingly cover spouses but not 'significant others', in the event their state does not do gay marriage.

Equality is equality, and the ugly truth is you have to grant it to get it.  The more you insist that you should be more equal than the other animals, the uglier the backlash will eventually be.

----------


## Barrex

Welcome to the forums. I am glad that you visited us. Dont be scared away 


Groups of people dont have rights (gays, heterosexuals, vegetarians, football fans...). 

Individual has rights. That is what makes us all equal. Gay individual has exactley same rights as heterosexual individual.

Ron and Rand believe in that. That is basic principle of libertarianism.

----------


## DisneyFan

I think Rand is probably a bit more tolerant of gays than Ron.

As for gay rights, it depends on what you mean. 

If you're talking about the issue of SSM, well, Rand is personally religious and traditionalist, so he doesn't support the idea of same-sex marriage, but he does support the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor, which struck down part of the anti-gay DOMA. In general, he thinks the SSM issue should be left to the states though his own view is that states should work on making their tax codes more neutral and fair.   His view is pretty standard in libertarian circles.

Beyond that, you are not going to find many people with even slight libertarian leanings who are big fans of adding sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws. Not because they don't like gays, but because they hate the very concept of those laws to begin with and think every addition to them is just another step down a very bad path.

----------


## 69360

I'm against gay lefts. 

You know the ones who force others to give them special treatment because they are gay.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm against gay lefts. 
> 
> You know the ones who force others to give them special treatment because they are gay.


  Let's hear it for the Log Cabin Republicans!

----------


## osan

> Are gay people human?


Some say "no".

----------


## Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist

Collective identity groups (e.g. neurodivergents, bronies, feminazis, MRA's, eco-fascists, hipsters, "animal rights" activists, trekkies, bankers, chavs, religious fundamentalists, anti-quackery activists, skinheads, racial nationalists and any minority subcultures) *do not* have rights, their primary objective is to sanction collectivist entitlements and privileges on one's property based on the justification of their own groupthink mentalizations and have no regard for the non-aggression axiom nor voluntary association. Only individuals uphold rights, that is the only true principle of equality that will put an end to the tyranny of the collective and the victim mentality complex.

----------


## osan

> Collective identity groups (e.g. neurodivergents, bronies, feminazis, MRA's, eco-fascists, hipsters, "animal rights" activists, trekkies, bankers, chavs, religious fundamentalists, anti-quackery activists, skinheads, racial nationalists and any minority subcultures) *do not* have rights, their primary objective is to sanction collectivist entitlements and privileges on one's property based on the justification of their own groupthink mentalizations and have no regard for the non-aggression axiom nor voluntary association. Only individuals uphold rights, that is the only true principle of equality that will put an end to the tyranny of the collective and the victim mentality complex.


Well, yes.  The allusion to such rights can only be interpreted to imply that rights are additive and that they are different for different people.  This, of course, is purest nonsense.  Also note how inconsistent the progressive world view tends to be in this regard (as well as most others, it appears).  What I mean is that they bray endlessly on about "equality", usually to the point you just want to slap them into the next county.  In the same breath, the come at you with this "special rights" baloney for certain groups.  The truly pathetic aspect of this is that they are either incapable or intransigently unwilling to see the world-class FAIL in this.  It is almost amazing to bear witness to such submarine stupidity.  I do believe I am safe in adding that such people have less than zero understanding of the nature of rights.  They are, in a word, clueless.

It is also worth pointing out that such groups do not in fact exist as anything other than conceptual abstractions.  Such abstractions, while convenient for the sake of reference in conversation, have no reality of their own.  At the end of the day, all you have is some number of individuals, whether they number two or two-billion.  The group is non-existent in that it is anything more than a collection of individuals.  It has no conglomerated interests, desires, likes, awareness, rights, responsibilities, allegiances, and so forth.  Because this be the case, the group can have no rights of which to speak.  Talk of such rights is indicative of hellishly gross ignorance at best and that of selling something rotten to the marrow in the more likely case.  The bottom line here is that the only rights that may be considered are those of each individual.  Furthermore, for the purposes of judgment, decision-making, and action, such rights may only be assessed in the context of those acts committed pursuant thereto or in violation thereof.

It has proven a devastatingly bad habit of men to regard these conceptual instruments as anything more than mere shorthand conveniences.  That they treat them in mind and in statute as actual, real, extant entities has produced results that are literally the worst in all the history of the race of men.  I would comfortably assert that 99%+ of all the horrors of human warring and other atrocious behaviors have stemmed from this habit, which most of us appear incapable or unwilling to relinquish.  It has been the death of countless hundreds of millions of presumably innocent people - perhaps even a billion or more over the course of the past several thousands of years.  That is nothing of which to be proud.

----------


## Unregistered

> Welcome to the forums. I am glad that you visited us. Dont be scared away 
> 
> 
> Groups of people dont have rights (gays, heterosexuals, vegetarians, football fans...). 
> 
> Individual has rights. That is what makes us all equal. Gay individual has exactley same rights as heterosexual individual.
> 
> Ron and Rand believe in that. That is basic principle of libertarianism.


What about corporations?  They're groups of people, right?

----------


## Unregistered

> I think Rand is probably a bit more tolerant of gays than Ron.
> 
> As for gay rights, it depends on what you mean. 
> 
> If you're talking about the issue of SSM, well, Rand is personally religious and traditionalist, so he doesn't support the idea of same-sex marriage, but he does support the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor, which struck down part of the anti-gay DOMA. In general, he thinks the SSM issue should be left to the states though his own view is that states should work on making their tax codes more neutral and fair.   His view is pretty standard in libertarian circles.
> 
> Beyond that, you are not going to find many people with even slight libertarian leanings who are big fans of adding sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws. Not because they don't like gays, but because they hate the very concept of those laws to begin with and think every addition to them is just another step down a very bad path.


Actually Ron is more tolerant than Rand.

----------


## oyarde

> They are more inclined to say there is not such thing as "gay rights".  You don't get special rights because you are gay.


That is how I see it .

----------


## thoughtomator

"Gay rights"?

You mean the "right" to indoctrinate others' children in compulsory government schools that a dangerous sexually deviant lifestyle is OK?

The right to shove one's repulsive sexual tendencies in the face of any person one comes across and sue the hell out of them if they react like a normal human being?

The right to have government goons drop six figure fines under threat of imprisonment or death on any private business owner who doesn't want to participate in dignifying acts of self-desecration?

The right to create a pretense of a family, adopting children into an unbalanced environment where they by design lack both male and female influence in their development?

The right to have a mockery of marriage designated as such by the state?


What "rights" are we talking about here, exactly?

----------


## William Tell

> Clowns to the left of me....


Jokers on your face....

----------


## amartin315

If government subsidizes one group, does another similar group have a "right" to be subsidized in the same way?
If government subsidizes one group, should another similar group be subsidized in the same way for the sake of equality?

I think that's the question.  We know we object to subsidies, but if one already exists, must it be applied equally?

I think yes...and no.

Marriage amounts to a subsidy in this country.  If it exists, it ought to go to everyone.  However, if it goes to everyone that defeats the purpose of the subsidy in the first place, which was to encourage marriage of a breeding pair.  In that case, why not abolish (government) marriage rather than extend it to everyone?

----------


## dannno

> I think Rand is probably a bit more tolerant of gays than Ron.





> John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?
> 
> Ron Paul: Sure.
> 
> Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?
> 
> Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want



Ron Paul even got sexually harassed by a gay guy on camera once, he handled it pretty well. It's in the movie Bruno.

----------


## Barrex

> What about corporations?  They're groups of people, right?


Correct. They are group of people and they dont have rights. Individuals have rights.

----------


## Unregistered

> If government subsidizes one group, does another similar group have a "right" to be subsidized in the same way?
> If government subsidizes one group, should another similar group be subsidized in the same way for the sake of equality?
> 
> I think that's the question.  We know we object to subsidies, but if one already exists, must it be applied equally?
> 
> I think yes...and no.
> 
> Marriage amounts to a subsidy in this country.  If it exists, it ought to go to everyone.  However, if it goes to everyone that defeats the purpose of the subsidy in the first place, which was to encourage marriage of a breeding pair.  In that case, why not abolish (government) marriage rather than extend it to everyone?


If that is truly the case, then men who have vasectomies should not be allowed to married.  Women with their tubes tied should not be allowed to marry.  People who are medically infertile should not be allowed to marry.  People who choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry.

Marriage is not about establishing "breeding pairs", and that has been defined legally.  The courts have ruled that even death row inmates have a right to marry, and they won't be breeding with their spouses.  Hell, several states even say it is legal to marry direct family members, as long as there won't be children.  How can you then say that marriage is about "breeding pairs"?

----------


## Origanalist

> If that is truly the case, then men who have vasectomies should not be allowed to married.  Women with their tubes tied should not be allowed to marry.  People who are medically infertile should not be allowed to marry.  People who choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry.
> 
> Marriage is not about establishing "breeding pairs", and that has been defined legally.  The courts have ruled that even death row inmates have a right to marry, and they won't be breeding with their spouses.  Hell, several states even say it is legal to marry direct family members, as long as there won't be children.  How can you then say that marriage is about "breeding pairs"?


Sorry, you lost me at "The courts have ruled".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If that is truly the case, then men who have vasectomies should not be allowed to married.  Women with their tubes tied should not be allowed to marry.  People who are medically infertile should not be allowed to marry.  People who choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry.
> 
> Marriage is not about establishing "breeding pairs", and that has been defined legally.  The courts have ruled that even death row inmates have a right to marry, and they won't be breeding with their spouses.  Hell, several states even say it is legal to marry direct family members, as long as there won't be children.  How can you then say that marriage is about "breeding pairs"?


Who cares?

If you are focused on the amount of new groups that should get something from government,  then you might as well not be questioning us.  We are on a different path of anti-government.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Human rights, period. Every last soul has the same rights. No special rights for select groups.

----------


## oyarde

> Human rights, period. Every last soul has the same rights. No special rights for select groups.


That is too simple for a world of ignorance.

----------


## piyaliguha90

> Are Rand and Ron against gay rights? Some things they have said would suggest they were.


I am with Gay Rights.

----------

