Did Ron Paul turn down a debate invitation?

[Perpetual]

So according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6916323.stm

theres going to be a debate exclusively about gay rights. They said, in the article:

"Although candidates from both parties were invited, only the Democrats responded positively, the HRC says, so a corresponding event will not be staged for their Republican counterparts."

Does that mean Ron Paul turned down their invitation? I'll be very disappointed with him if he did. People are smearing him as anti-gay, when really he could WIN gay votes by talking about his stance on gays in the military, or letting states choose to offer gay marriage. . .

Seriously, if RP declined because he's philosophically against gays. . . that will devastate me. I thought he was about freedom and life, not posturing and cliques. Even if he makes a fool of himself there, at least he went and got his name out. He should go. If right wing voters choose not to vote for him because he attended a gay rights debate, then they didn't understand his ideas in the first place.

Edit: Oh, psh, nevermind, the debate is tonight.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It would be disappointing due to the fact that Ron Paul believes in free associations among individuals. He would give everyone a new way to think of marriage. Marriage should not be regulated by government. Period.

 

[Shink]

Perhaps the candidates invited did not include him? Not unthinkable, after the Failor debacle and Gravel not being included in the last televised debate.

 

[libertarianguy]

mph

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

maybe republicans didn't decide to go because they don't pander to minorities?

at least that's the case with ron...

hm but Ron Paul supports gay marriage. But I understand what you're saying.

 

[Syren123]

Wow. You just talked yourself right into a panic attack. You don't know if Ron Paul even GOT an invitation let alone declined one, and you then walked right into the assumption that he has now changed his up til now unchanging position that gays are not a separate group and therefore don't need special 'rights.' There is no indication he has changed his position whatsoever from anywhere.

Calm down there pardner.

 

[FreedomLover]

iowa straw poll > gay only debate with pandering dems already targeting this bloc

anyway, no one was going to show up either way. Not a big constituency.

 

[libertarianguy]

mph

 

[Bloody Holly]

So according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6916323.stm

theres going to be a debate exclusively about gay rights. They said, in the article:

"Although candidates from both parties were invited, only the Democrats responded positively, the HRC says, so a corresponding event will not be staged for their Republican counterparts."

Does that mean Ron Paul turned down their invitation? I'll be very disappointed with him if he did. People are smearing him as anti-gay, when really he could WIN gay votes by talking about his stance on gays in the military, or letting states choose to offer gay marriage. . .

Seriously, if RP declined because he's philosophically against gays. . . that will devastate me. I thought he was about freedom and life, not posturing and cliques. Even if he makes a fool of himself there, at least he went and got his name out. He should go. If right wing voters choose not to vote for him because he attended a gay rights debate, then they didn't understand his ideas in the first place.

Edit: Oh, psh, nevermind, the debate is tonight.

I love how people think you are anti-gay if you aren't pandering to just their interests. It's annoying as fuck if you think about it.
If you want to know, Ron Paul doesn't care if you are gay or straight. He also doesn't think you are entitled to special treatment for being gay or straight.

My personal thoughts are shields of protections are being abused because when it comes down to it, there's always going to be the good and bad apples with every form of group. When you give special shields to groups then you leave out those that don't belong and those with special shields can turn around and discriminate against those who aren't protected by a PC shield therefore proving that it's all just a power struggle like most everything else.

 

[Syren123]

well, his view would certainly be well received. But it's so elegantly simple that there'd be nothing else to say and he'd have wasted his valuable time. Let hillary and company work out all the details of their complex 'minority-rights' legislation

LOL! Good one!

 

[ctb619]

hm but Ron Paul supports gay marriage. But I understand what you're saying.

Ron Paul supports gay marriage?

 

[Lord Xar]

Well, to me - he probably refused because "gays" are a group and why only talk about gays when its about invidividuals, not groups..

I mean, all this pandering is crazy.

 

[Perpetual]

Well I called and left a message with someone there at the HRC, maybe I'll hear back, but probably not until tomorrow.

I guess if he chose to talk at the Iowa state fair instead of be at the debate. . . thats alright. . .

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ron Paul supports gay marriage?

well.. "free associations" it looks to me that he doesn't want government to regulate marriage.

This would be a libertarian stance

 

[Shink]

Actually, it would have been nice if Ron Paul could have gone, because I hear Iowa City has a good amount of gays there, and I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul's sensible, scholarly stances brought over a decent amount of them to the correct candidate, rather than the pandering Emo Dems. That's what I'm calling them from now on, "Emo."

Edit: so you guys know, the OP has been amended, the debate is tonight, hence the reason he wouldn't show up. Too busy in Iowa.

 

[ctb619]

well.. "free associations" it looks to me that he doesn't want government to regulate marriage.

I follow you...thanks

 

[libertarianguy]

mph

 

[ThePieSwindler]

lol noobs debate is tonight. Not to be un-PC about this, but i have a feeling this was scheduled tonight WHEN THEY KNEW REPUBLICANS WOULD BE IN IOWA CAMPAIGNING just to make them look bad, similar to the NAACP event - i contactd the campaign about it [the naacp debate] back when it happened and they couldn't make it because the invitiation was last minute and they were already booked for google. They actually said if they received another invite for another event when they were not busy, they would be happy to attend an NAACP event.


I have a feeling the same shit here is going on, with Iowa trumping this invite.

 

[Paul-O-Holic]

Gay Rights

Paul doesn't believe in gay rights. He believes in the rights of individuals.

There would be nothing to debate. At Google, when asked about protecting the rights of minorities, he said that the "individual is the only true minority." That's pretty much all there is to say about gay rights.

 

[LibertyEagle]

hm but Ron Paul supports gay marriage. But I understand what you're saying.

I think you are misrepresenting him here. Have you looked at the bills he has entered about this?