Gays and Ron Paul

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

Sorry.

 

[Tdcci]

Good points. I figured someone would bring up the the government being involved in marriage. I don't think it should be either. But there are vested interests in the general welfare that attach to basic family units and the cohesion and stability of society. Encouragement can take many unintrusive forms.

No, it can't. It really can't. Why do we need more "basic family units"? We don't. Your fantasy One woman One man One son One daughter "family" is not threatened by different family structures.

You can find a "church" that will sanction anything. What would it harm anyone's person or property if some of us wanted to go nude? How about having open air sex on street corners. Absurd examples, but the point being people don't live like fundamentalist libertarians - even the people who loudly claim to be one.

What's wrong with going nude or having open air sex on street corners? It upsets the prudes, but I consider that a Good Thing(TM).

Some things obviously work. Other things obviously don't. Judeo-Christian precepts work.

Judeo-Christians concepts have caused much pain and suffering in the world, and has done little good.

Materialistic, ultra-libertarian theory doesn't.

Lies.

don't see a conflict between functional, practical libertarian concepts built on the basic foundations of those Judeo-Christian premises.

Libertarianism was not built on "Judeo-Christian premises". It cannot, as under "Judeo-Christian" law, you cannot truly be free.

There's no advocation for cramming religion down anyone's throat, nor is there any for having atheistic secular humanism crammed down anyone's throat.

No one wants to cram anything down your throat, unless you want it that way

One problem being that there's no compelling reason for the 'smart monkey' to be personally responsible on his own, besides some whimsical, fickle feeling. I don't see a revival of 'Reason' sweeping the land.

No way for you, personally, you think. Plenty of atheists get by.

The Founders did better than anyone so far in history. But if the parasites continue to eat the host in the name of personal autonomy, they will find themselves in a thoroughly anti-libertarian environment.

Gay people will lead to a totalitarian state? Faith is no substitute for logic.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

sophistry07 has some competition. I have faith a counter point of more substance than, "Is not!", will appear.

 

[DanConway]

Apart from the State sanction and protection of a man, a woman, and their children as the basic ingredient, 'civilization' is toast.

The extended family -- a man, a woman, their children, their parents, as well as assorted aunts, uncles, and cousins -- is the traditional family. The nuclear family, like diamond engagement rings and many other things, is an invention of the 1950s invested with false tradition.

 

[mtmedlin]

Good points. I figured someone would bring up the the government being involved in marriage. I don't think it should be either. But there are vested interests in the general welfare that attach to basic family units and the cohesion and stability of society. Encouragement can take many unintrusive forms.

You can find a "church" that will sanction anything. What would it harm anyone's person or property if some of us wanted to go nude? How about having open air sex on street corners. Absurd examples, but the point being people don't live like fundamentalist libertarians - even the people who loudly claim to be one.

Some things obviously work. Other things obviously don't. Judeo-Christian precepts work. Materialistic, ultra-libertarian theory doesn't. I don't see a conflict between functional, practical libertarian concepts built on the basic foundations of those Judeo-Christian premises. There's no advocation for cramming religion down anyone's throat, nor is there any for having atheistic secular humanism crammed down anyone's throat.

There are two competing worldviews identified above. Man created in God's image, but fallen - and man as an accidentally animate piece of meat. The latter can only survive on the stable back of the former. Even then, it must be willing to exercise personal responsibility and restrain to keep the foundation that supports it glued together. And by the same light, the foundation shouldn't force dogmatic adherence on it's passengers, any more than God forces anyone to believe in Him. One problem being that there's no compelling reason for the 'smart monkey' to be personally responsible on his own, besides some whimsical, fickle feeling. I don't see a revival of 'Reason' sweeping the land.

The Founders did better than anyone so far in history. But if the parasites continue to eat the host in the name of personal autonomy, they will find themselves in a thoroughly anti-libertarian environment.

What vested interest do they have in family units and how does it relate to stability of society? As far as churches sanctioning anything, who cares. The involvement of the church is for the participants and holds no power or governance. I wuld suspect that the majority of churches would reject gay marriage and I was pointing out that they have the right to do so.
The nudity and sex issue is a good point and a difficult one to answer. I would ascert that public nudity and sex does have certain cleanliness issues depending on location. It is easy to ban any of those activites in public buildings and other areas that people may come into contact. Overall yes, this is one area that pragmatism must be applied and doesnt necessarily fit perfectly into the Libertarian philossphy. Your ascertion of Judeo Christian principles work is highly flawed. I can think of numerous laws made specifically based on judeo christian principles that have been an abolute travesty. I cannot think of a single possesion drug law that works, or the laws on consentual sex between people of the same sex or people that sell sexual services. Both are a violation of basic societal contract. I would go on and on but you seem to be very well informed and have heard many others.
The biggest issue that I have is that a judeo christian society is restrictive of others legally based desires, whereas an atheist society inpunes upon no persons legal rights, just their moral objections, which have little to no place in government. How does something like giving all people the right to marry who they want any business of anybody not involved in the marriage. If I want two wives, how is that any persons business other then me and the two ladies. As long as all people are of legal age to consent and are aware of all people involved, then it is a social contract and the government has no vested interest to act.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

mtmedlin,

Are you a fundamentalist libertarian? I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I'm asking if you extrapolate out to it's logical conclusion, rigidly dogmatic libertarian doctrine? Public nudity, and sex etc., for instance. This doesn't really strike me as all that different from liberal wish-world... sounds sorta nice in theory, but don't do any cost / benefit analysis, or worry about unintended consequences, and good heavens, avoid reality at all costs. Have you every really thought about what it would actually mean for everyone to absolutely anything at all that struck their fancy whenever they felt like it? That scenario appeals to you? Would we all have bumper stickers that said, "Just Be Nice"? Do you believe evil is caused by circumstances, and if circumstances were arranged just so, or if all restraints were removed, that men would be 'good'?

This is the kind of thing that gives Paul supporters the bad reputation (not to mention sophistry07) You have to know that a fundamentalist libertarian nation isn't in the cards. Nero's attempt turned out to be highly flammable. It's unrealistic. It's like the useful idiots saying communism really isn't so bad... it just wasn't done correctly. Your godless utopia is a myth, and I think you are aware of the fact. Atheism isn't really godless anyway. It simply transfers the religious worship from a deity to one's self. With Nietzsche as the high priest. Your chances at unrestrained bliss diminish rapidly in the face of truth from the barrel of a gun.

The complaints about Judeo-Christian drawbacks seem a little unappreciative, and dismissive of it's successes. In fact, it seems to catch the blame for a lot of the havoc caused by the unbridled hedonism thrust on us by liberalism and political correctness. There are certainly flaws, but how about comparing Western Civilization to the rest of the world. Of course you may be a revisionist who insists that the 'enlightenment' struggled to overcome the insidious Christians and won. It's sure winning now. France?

But if Sweden or some other socialist paradise strikes you as shangri-la, by all means, emigrate. I'd like my country back.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

DanConway,

Where would the extended family come from apart from the nuclear? They are inextricably intertwined and I wasn't excluding the rest. Are we splitting hairs? How about, 'Apart from the extended family, with its basic nucleus, a man, a woman, and their children, civilization cannot survive'?

 

[sophocles07]

a man, a woman, and their children

There have been cultures, though, where a man had many wives. It did not lead to a "breakdown" of the family. Why do you oppose this (polygamy) if your goal is to preserve the family?

By the way, only an extremist Xtian could be this corny:

sophistry07

 

[mtmedlin]

mtmedlin,

Are you a fundamentalist libertarian? I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I'm asking if you extrapolate out to it's logical conclusion, rigidly dogmatic libertarian doctrine? Public nudity, and sex etc., for instance. This doesn't really strike me as all that different from liberal wish-world... sounds sorta nice in theory, but don't do any cost / benefit analysis, or worry about unintended consequences, and good heavens, avoid reality at all costs. Have you every really thought about what it would actually mean for everyone to absolutely anything at all that struck their fancy whenever they felt like it? That scenario appeals to you? Would we all have bumper stickers that said, "Just Be Nice"? Do you believe evil is caused by circumstances, and if circumstances were arranged just so, or if all restraints were removed, that men would be 'good'?

This is the kind of thing that gives Paul supporters the bad reputation (not to mention sophistry07) You have to know that a fundamentalist libertarian nation isn't in the cards. Nero's attempt turned out to be highly flammable. It's unrealistic. It's like the useful idiots saying communism really isn't so bad... it just wasn't done correctly. Your godless utopia is a myth, and I think you are aware of the fact. Atheism isn't really godless anyway. It simply transfers the religious worship from a deity to one's self. With Nietzsche as the high priest. Your chances at unrestrained bliss diminish rapidly in the face of truth from the barrel of a gun.

The complaints about Judeo-Christian drawbacks seem a little unappreciative, and dismissive of it's successes. In fact, it seems to catch the blame for a lot of the havoc caused by the unbridled hedonism thrust on us by liberalism and political correctness. There are certainly flaws, but how about comparing Western Civilization to the rest of the world. Of course you may be a revisionist who insists that the 'enlightenment' struggled to overcome the insidious Christians and won. It's sure winning now. France?

But if Sweden or some other socialist paradise strikes you as shangri-la, by all means, emigrate. I'd like my country back.

No I dont consider myself to be a fundamentalist Lib. and in all honesty I liked your tone in the earlier part of the thread a hell of a lot better. Please keep it civil, I need another person attempting to promote themselves through vailed arrogance like I need a hole in my head.
You first paragraph is the typical response to the libertarian view in order to setup the phase where you justify the taking of rights in the name of order. I do not have a problem with having a social contract that all agree to but that is not what is the typical Christian agenda. Judeo christian success, I surely hope you are kidding. More people have been persecuted and killed in the name of the all mighty then any other religion. Hedonism is caused by liberalism, really? A bit of a stretch to say the least. Western civilization can be measured a success as long as you use the correct measuring stick. The stick would be, ends justify the means. I love how the early godly settlers learned them indians some religion at the heal of a boot and a bullet to their head. As far as you wanting your country back, hate to break it to you but that which is stolen is never fully owned. Christians will simply have to learn that their days of iron grip through the use of tyranny are over and that rational and cooler heads prevail. Even though pure libertarianism isnt the answer it sure as hell is the better direction then the attempts at a christian Theocracy.

 

[mtmedlin]

There have been cultures, though, where a man had many wives. It did not lead to a "breakdown" of the family. Why do you oppose this (polygamy) if your goal is to preserve the family?

By the way, only an extremist Xtian could be this corny:

Wasn't Jesus in a culture like this?

 

[sophocles07]

Wasn't Jesus in a culture like this?

Yes.

And the Romans, stable as any culture that had yet existed (more so than most that ever have), were in awe of the zealots that sprung up from Christ's little cult. Juvenal writes about this. The Roman view at the time, the contemporary idea of the Christian, was one of vague dislike. Somewhat like, to bring up a comparison that's entirely appropriate, we consider cults in contemporary America (think Heaven's Gate--in fact, one of the things Romans were appalled by was the widespread of Christian martyrdom, WILLING and desiring that they be martyred "for a cause").

 

[Cinnaboo]

It did not lead to a "breakdown" of the family.

Not only that. Polygamy also has decidedly more clout in anthropology than the american family unit.

 

[Mini-Me]

Interestingly enough...
I see no real reason why public nudity and public sex, even massive gay sex orgies in the city square right in front of impressionable little children, need to be prohibited by law, coercion, and the force of government. Rather, I think the market itself is a pretty good regulator of social norms...if you do things in public that most people in your community find disgusting, you'll quickly become a pariah, have trouble finding work, have trouble being taken seriously by others, etc. People that behave in an unwelcome fashion in more socially conservative communities will gravitate toward more socially liberal communities. Generally speaking, in a libertarian society, people's behavior would come to a natural equilibrium with prevailing social norms through an unwritten social contract for how to conduct themselves in public.

Humans are social beings, and hardly anybody wants to be a total outcast. In my opinion, this alone is enough to keep social order. Such a "hands-off" policy also permits culture to be fluid and to evolve without being chained down by the arbitrary constraints of past mindsets. After all, you don't typically see people walking down the streets in robes and togas anymore. Why do you think this is? Do we have laws that say it must be so? Are jeans and t-shirts somehow inherently better or more civilized? Are suits and ties? No - culture just evolves, but it does so slowly, and at any given snapshot in history (in a particular setting), most people will dress and act within the boundaries of social norms...all by themselves, without any government forcing them to.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

mtmedlin

My apologies. I wasn't aware that there was an officially sanctioned 'tone' I was bound to adhere to. I'll see if I can take note of the humble offerings here and emulate them so as not cause distress with my 'veiled' arrogance. There's already a surplus of ventilated heads.

"More people have been persecuted and killed in the name of the all mighty then any other religion."

The falsity of that statement is easily verifiable, if anyone is interested. If all Christians are required to own the actions of those of their brethren that violate the tenets of their faith, then secularist share the same responsibility.

Greatest Murderers

The simple fact of history is that the greatest evil has always resulted from denial of God, not pursuit of Him. Dennis Prager has noted, "In this [20th] century alone, more innocent people have been murdered, tortured, and enslaved by secular ideologies nazism and communism than by all religions in history."

Grab an older copy of the Guinness Book of World Records and turn to the category "Judicial," sub-heading "Crimes: Mass Killings." You’ll find that carnage of unimaginable proportions resulted not from religion, but from institutionalized atheism.

Guinness reports, "The greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against another is the 26.3 million Chinese killed during the regime of Mao Zedong between 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed...the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32.25 and 61.7 million."

In the USSR, Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimated that state repression and terrorism took over 66 million lives from 1917 to 1959 under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev.

The worst per capita genocide happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. According to Guinness, "More than one third of the eight million Khmers were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979."

The greatest evil does not result from people zealous for God. It results when people are convinced there is no God to whom they must answer.

Gregory Koukl str.org

When a Christian engages in deeds that violate the precepts of his faith, beginning with, "You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.", he violates the precepts of his religion. When anyone else engages in what for a Christian would be immoral or criminal acts, including the atheistic secular humanist, he is justified by 'situational ethics', or any number of interchangeable precepts of his unique and personal religion.

Shame used to be a great regulator of societal norms. It's an extinct concept now. We have 'evolved' past shame. I've also envisioned America in zones, where if you wanted to live your life without having to avoid stepping on copulating couples on the sidewalk you would reside in the Southeast. And if you wanted your children to be free to engage in sidewalk copulation you would live near the West coast, and so on. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

A Promiscuous Legal Versus A Decent Civil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6rD-LLrrF8

Please respond to what Ron Paul's views are regarding gay marriage and how gay are individuals and not a collective group. I understand the way the Constitution prevents the government from oppressing gays, but I don't quite know how to phrase it so this person will understand how Ron Paul is really his defender and not his enemy.

The civil purpose that our forefathers designed for us into the Constitution dealt not with the issue of our "fun" together but with the more sober issue of our "collective contentment." Their agenda regarding this collective happiness was more concerned with us exercizing our Bill of Rights to stay out from under a cruel umbrella of legal tyranny than with how we might choose to intermingle together.
Think of a legal tyranny as a mostly empty box that has a lot of necessary evils in it. These evils are law making judges, prosecuters, lawyers, jurors and so on.
When we live in such a metaphorical hell where our Constitution is interpreted in only legal terms, we lose our souls as American citizens; whereas, when we live in a society where it is interpreted in civil terms -- a more perfect Union concerned with our collective contentment -- we find a common culture.
So, as liberals supporting Dr. Ron Paul, we shouldn't be politically irresponsible by bickering with or blaming all our problems on conservatives.
In regards to what should be considered promiscuity? Our forefathers defined for us a definition of our character in the Constitution. This common culture that we all share together requires a prerequisite of collective contentment. Because we are the people with the collective contentment culture, we have inherited a clear agenda for both our domestic and foreign policy.
Anytime the strangers in control of our government today say something like "what is in the best interest of the United States . . .," trust that they are up to something promiscuous politically speaking.

 

[sophocles07]

My apologies. I wasn't aware that there was an officially sanctioned 'tone' I was bound to adhere to. I'll see if I can take note of the humble offerings here and emulate them so as not cause distress with my 'veiled' arrogance. There's already a surplus of ventilated heads.

"More people have been persecuted and killed in the name of the all mighty then any other religion."

The falsity of that statement is easily verifiable, if anyone is interested. If all Christians are required to own the actions of those of their brethren that violate the tenets of their faith, then secularist share the same responsibility.

Greatest Murderers

The simple fact of history is that the greatest evil has always resulted from denial of God, not pursuit of Him. Dennis Prager has noted, "In this [20th] century alone, more innocent people have been murdered, tortured, and enslaved by secular ideologies nazism and communism than by all religions in history."

Grab an older copy of the Guinness Book of World Records and turn to the category "Judicial," sub-heading "Crimes: Mass Killings." You’ll find that carnage of unimaginable proportions resulted not from religion, but from institutionalized atheism.

Guinness reports, "The greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against another is the 26.3 million Chinese killed during the regime of Mao Zedong between 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed...the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32.25 and 61.7 million."

In the USSR, Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimated that state repression and terrorism took over 66 million lives from 1917 to 1959 under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev.

The worst per capita genocide happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. According to Guinness, "More than one third of the eight million Khmers were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979."

The greatest evil does not result from people zealous for God. It results when people are convinced there is no God to whom they must answer.

Gregory Koukl str.org

When a Christian engages in deeds that violate the precepts of his faith, beginning with, "You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.", he violates the precepts of his religion. When anyone else engages in what for a Christian would be immoral or criminal acts, including the atheistic secular humanist, he is justified by 'situational ethics', or any number of interchangeable precepts of his unique and personal religion.

Shame used to be a great regulator of societal norms. It's an extinct concept now. We have 'evolved' past shame. I've also envisioned America in zones, where if you wanted to live your life without having to avoid stepping on copulating couples on the sidewalk you would reside in the Southeast. And if you wanted your children to be free to engage in sidewalk copulation you would live near the West coast, and so on. Does that sound reasonable?

Assuming these numbers aren't exaggerated (which they are), did these deaths occur because these men were atheists, or because they followed bad economics and bad philosophy? I.E. Aren't you really just bullshitting?

 

[A rope leash]

You better than me?

Shut up and read. Everyone is at least a little gay. Everyone has sexual fantasies that they employ during the act of sex. Are you telling me that in the case of men that there is no penis involved in these fantasies? Everyone is a little gay, at least.

Now read this: The genetic case for sexual preference is clearly established. Hey how about these twins?

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/twin-p...y/20080229092109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

For the religious that condemn homosexuality, I give them their own god, the one that creates everything, including gay people. Of course, god created "Satan" as well, and for some reason chooses not to control him.

Now, pay attention. My brother was a Marine, and an Airman. He was quite the pole climber. I mean he worked for the cable company. He contracted HIV as the result of some booo-ya in the Corps. I spent quite a lot of time with him after I learned of his disease, and as a result have become educated. Let me tell you a little story...

My brother and I spent a week or so walking and riding trails. He seemed bummed out all week. I wasn't in the greatest of shapes myself, just coming off another divorce, and without any dates for months. I took him home, and we spent a few hours sulking around his apartment. Then the phone rang. It was his boyfriend. He was down at the payphone. I didn't know they had broken up. You should have seen the sunshine on my brother's face. I was actually jealous that he was in love and I was not.

Does everyone get it now? Homosexuals love each other just like herterosexuals do. My brother was one of the better men I have ever known...in the sense of what a "real man" is...but he loved men romantically and always had, since he was a kid, even.

Now, some may find the "practice" of homosexuality to be repulsive, but when big fat me gives a big fat kiss to my big fat girlfriend, her kids are pretty repulsed by that, too. Nature isn't all that pretty when it comes to the mechanics of species survival. As the planet continues to be infested with far too many human beings, there is much to be gained by allowing those with homosexual tendencies to continue with what their hearts want, and homosexuality might well be nature's way of slowing down population growth. The last thing we need is more breeders.

Now, as far as gay marriage goes, I have to ask: Why? Why does anyone want to get married? It's like being tied together with knives! Do you think your sex life is so filthy that a god must offically condone it? Is there some legal benefit to marriage? Shit, who wants to be responsible for someone else's debts? I don't get marriage at all, much less gay marriage...but if two gays want to, I assure you, they are in love.

 

[Theocrat]

Dr. Paul and Gay Marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6rD-LLrrF8

Please respond to what Ron Paul's views are regarding gay marriage and how gay are individuals and not a collective group. I understand the way the Constitution prevents the government from oppressing gays, but I don't quite know how to phrase it so this person will understand how Ron Paul is really his defender and not his enemy.

I think there's an old saying that goes something like "If you want to know something, go straight to the source." The guy in that video seriously needs to heed those words of wisdom if he sincerely cares about Congressman Paul's alleged "homophobia."

Anyway, I've found some articles and speeches written by Dr. Paul which may relate to the issue of gay marriage in some way or another. I hope this will be of some help.

• "Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized"
• "Gay Marriage Quicksand"
• "House Votes to Protect State Marriage Laws"
• "Resisting Judicial Tyranny"
• "The Imperial Judiciary"
• "Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution"
• "IRS Threatens Political Speech"

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

But don't clothes look nice?

Interestingly enough...
I see no real reason why public nudity and public sex, even massive gay sex orgies in the city square right in front of impressionable little children, need to be prohibited by law, coercion, and the force of government.

I agree. When mingling sexually in front of innocent children, naked people only appear like yucky bugs to them. Certainly their minds will be able to internalize such disgusting impressions. It is when the children get bitten by the bug that they become victimized and traumatized.

Rather, I think the market itself is a pretty good regulator of social norms...if you do things in public that most people in your community find disgusting, you'll quickly become a pariah, have trouble finding work, have trouble being taken seriously by others, etc. People that behave in an unwelcome fashion in more socially conservative communities will gravitate toward more socially liberal communities. Generally speaking, in a libertarian society, people's behavior would come to a natural equilibrium with prevailing social norms through an unwritten social contract for how to conduct themselves in public.

Wouldn't this lead to sanitary issues? What if people wanted to sit down? Don't we wear underwear specifically to protect our clothes from fluids that might be discharged because of our bodily functions as human beings?

Humans are social beings, and hardly anybody wants to be a total outcast. In my opinion, this alone is enough to keep social order. Such a "hands-off" policy also permits culture to be fluid and to evolve without being chained down by the arbitrary constraints of past mindsets. After all, you don't typically see people walking down the streets in robes and togas anymore. Why do you think this is? Do we have laws that say it must be so? Are jeans and t-shirts somehow inherently better or more civilized? Are suits and ties? No - culture just evolves, but it does so slowly, and at any given snapshot in history (in a particular setting), most people will dress and act within the boundaries of social norms...all by themselves, without any government forcing them to.

Sociologists and psychologists had a field day giving interviews to hundreds of people who partook in sex on elevators in New York City during a massive failure of the electric grid. The reason they gave most for fooling around was that no one would ever know enough to figure out who did what. In other words, there was no eye of society there to hold anyone to any moral consequences. These analogies you give here are good but you still have the problem with naked people leaving their defecation and urine all over everything.

 

[Working Poor]

The freedom for everyone to believe what they want...

I guess Dahmer, Hitler and Manson would be productive members of this type of society.

I think in this type of society it would still be illegal to kill people...