does RP support gay marriage?

[OptionsTrader]

This is the first time I've ever heard someone say, they thought Ron Paul gave a vague, misleading, convoluted or confusing answer to ANY question EVER!

That's because this guy isn't interested in learning, he is interested in disrupting. Check his history.

 

[Tdcci]

That's because this guy isn't interested in learning, he is interested in disrupting. Check his history.

His posts in this thread were not disruptive, at least coming from a pro-Gay Marriage standpoint. I know closeted homosexuals can be uptight about these issues.

 

[uncollapse]

i did not mean to agitate the closeted homosexuals...

 

[OptionsTrader]

His posts in this thread were not disruptive, at least coming from a pro-Gay Marriage standpoint. I know closeted homosexuals can be uptight about these issues.

Bigoted people tend to defend fallacious logical arguments.

 

[uncollapse]

believe it or not. Many people are confused about RP position on gay marriage. Ask RP supporters and they seems to give you answers from different end of the spectrum. If i understand correctly from the replies i got here, RP personally is against gay marriage, but do not agree that Federal should get involve. From some internet sources, it was said that he also do not think that the State level should get involved.

 

[Tdcci]

Bigoted people tend to defend fallacious logical arguments.

I'm glad you can also see the problem. The first step of my plan to recovery is to dismantle the church and all church literature, and send the bigots to re-education camps where they will not be exposed to other bigots that affirm their viewpoint. They shall be taught critical thinking, and to listen to opposing viewpoints until they break down and accept the LORD Sir Richard Dawkins and his homosexual magistrate.

 

[Tdcci]

believe it or not. Many people are confused about RP position on gay marriage. Ask RP supporters and they seems to give you answers from different end of the spectrum. If i understand correctly from the replies i got here, RP personally is against gay marriage, but do not agree that Federal should get involve. From some internet sources, it was said that he also do not think that the State level should get involved.

I think you got the wrong idea, he doesn't personally oppose gay marriage, he wasn't very clear on the issue, but he certainly wasn't very loud or clear about it. By avoiding the question by saying he wants to give the states a say and that anyone should engage in a consensual contract and the government should recognize it (who?). This way he can get the anti-gay Marriage supporters and the pro-gay Marriage supporters, each rationalizing that he is on their side. This is something I would expect from a Barack Obama, not Ron Paul.

 

[Signzit]

I think you got the wrong idea, he doesn't personally oppose gay marriage, he wasn't very clear on the issue, but he certainly wasn't very loud or clear about it. By avoiding the question by saying he wants to give the states a say and that anyone should engage in a consensual contract and the government should recognize it (who?). This way he can get the anti-gay Marriage supporters and the pro-gay Marriage supporters, each rationalizing that he is on their side. This is something I would expect from a Barack Obama, not Ron Paul.

Simply put, it's the constitutional answer. The Federal Gubmnt. has business ruling on these things.

What's tomorrow's question uncollapse: is Ron Paul really Pro-Life?

Let me answer now before you ask; also, not Federal Gubmnt. job to deciding these things!

 

[Tdcci]

Simply put, it's the constitutional answer. The Federal Gubmnt. has business ruling on these things.

What's tomorrow's question uncollapse: is Ron Paul really Pro-Life?

People want to know what he would do if he were a governor. Gives us insight into how he thinks.

 

[ghemminger]

Ron Paul supports freedom of choice

 

[nickcoons]

Ron Paul is easy to support as a federal politician, because he would delegate a lot of power to the states. I definitely wouldn't support him if he were running for state office, because of his views on many state issues, one of which is gay marriage. He has said that if he were a Texas legislator, he would not vote to, in his own words, "redefine marriage".

The term "redefine marriage" is often shorthand for "redefine marriage to include the relationship between a man and a women." Therefore, someone not wanting to redefine marriage would be supportive of gay marriage, and someone wanting to redefine marriage would be opposed to gay marriage. The idea of not wanting to redefine marriage is libertarian, so I'm not sure why you would oppose that.

Personally, I have nothing against other people marrying men, women, or horses for that matter.. why should I or anyone else have a say in their personal lives?

One day I hope Ron can be superceded with someone that, while sharing most of his views, has a reasonable amount of charisma, supports gay marriage, is an atheist, and has no dirty laundry like the newsletters. Libertarianism is the most rational political philosophy, marrying it with the most rational religious philosophy would make it perfect.

http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com

Are you in my district .

 

[Tdcci]

The term "redefine marriage" is often shorthand for "redefine marriage to include the relationship between a man and a women." Therefore, someone not wanting to redefine marriage would be supportive of gay marriage, and someone wanting to redefine marriage would be opposed to gay marriage. The idea of not wanting to redefine marriage is libertarian, so I'm not sure why you would oppose that.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm

"Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage."

Outsourcing the oppression to the states is just another way to defer responsibility. In an attempt to save slavery, pro-slavery congressmen tried to make it a states' rights issue, giving legitimate states' rights issues a bad name. Today, when you speak of "state's rights", it is often thought that you are using a euphemism for white supremacy! Gay Marriage Prohibition, like laws against soft drugs or gambling are attempts to codify morality into law. They don't work, they limit our freedom, and give the government more power to intrude on our personal lives.

Personally, I have nothing against other people marrying men, women, or horses for that matter.. why should I or anyone else have a say in their personal lives?

You shouldn't. But if you do, and state marriage is likely to be here for a long time, the government ought not to discriminate. Also, not to disagree with you, but the "and then people will be marrying animals!" argument against gay marriage is particularly fallacious. The issue here is consent, and human adults, not animals or inanimate objects are able to give consent to wed under current law. This can, and probably should be changed, once we purge creationism from our culture and grant our ape cousins the same rights that we enjoy.

Are you in my district .

Sadly, no, but if I were I would vote for you. I think it is inevitable that one day rationalists will be the norm. It could be said that they are ahead of their time. Religious violence and law has bred a new generation of atheists in Iraq, and the bigotry is doing the same in the United States. I sincerely hope that one day, our children will look at homophobia as we do racism, an ugly relic of the past.

 

[nickcoons]

Outsourcing the oppression to the states is just another way to defer responsibility. In an attempt to save slavery, pro-slavery congressmen tried to make it a states' rights issue, giving legitimate states' rights issues a bad name. Today, when you speak of "state's rights", it is often thought that you are using a euphemism for white supremacy! Gay Marriage Prohibition, like laws against soft drugs or gambling are attempts to codify morality into law. They don't work, they limit our freedom, and give the government more power to intrude on our personal lives.

Absolutely agreed, with everything except the first sentence.

It's not so much that Dr. Paul wishes to defer responsibility, it's that the Constitution binds him to do so, because Congress has no authority to define marriage one way or the other. While the term "states' rights" may carry a negative connotation, this is indeed a states' rights issue from the point of the federal government. It is the burden of the residents of the several states, not of the federal government, to prevent their state governments from passing oppressive laws.

Also, not to disagree with you, but the "and then people will be marrying animals!" argument against gay marriage is particularly fallacious.

You weren't disagreeing with me, because I'm not arguing that gay marriage is a slippery-slope to bestiality.. I think that would be an absurd argument. I was merely pointing out that I don't really care what people do as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

Sadly, no, but if I were I would vote for you. I think it is inevitable that one day rationalists will be the norm. It could be said that they are ahead of their time. Religious violence and law has bred a new generation of atheists in Iraq, and the bigotry is doing the same in the United States. I sincerely hope that one day, our children will look at homophobia as we do racism, an ugly relic of the past.

Let's hope so.

 

[jjank11]

Ron Paul would simply leave that issue up to the states. He may not personally agree with gay marriage but he is open, no pun intended, about having the freedom to choose on almost any issue.

Marriage, as it is defined, is a religious issue and the federal government, as per the first amendment, is not able to relegate such an issue, as to whether they are for or against. It should be off limits to federal government.
It is more or less a states rights issue at the time being but since we have a federal income tax, the government does have its hands in on the issue. It may be indirect but the hand is still in the cookie jar.