Gays and Ron Paul

[Hoover Dog 1957]

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.

 

[Banana]

I usually tell them of Barry Goldwater's quote regarding gays in military:

"Gays has been serving honorably since time of Julius Caesar. I don't care if they aren't straight, as long they shoot straight!"

Paul is pretty much like Goldwater; he doesn't believe government has any business in private lives.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

if the gov doesnt have any business in private lives then gays or anyother have no business being open with their private lives...?? im straight but do you really care or should i push on you what i like in a sexual way? No.

 

[G-Wohl]

Paul probably doesn't himself agree with gay marriage. He is a born-again Christian, and thus his views really don't allow it.

However, I think politically he doesn't have to have an opinion, and probably shouldn't. His position on this stuff has always been that it is not a federal issue, and that the states need to decide this.

These two quotes probably best describe his opinion:

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

He doesn't mention homosexual rights precisely, but that's because he doesn't have to. Doing so would single out a specific group of people, which in itself is a direct attack against libertarianism.

 

[Cinnaboo]

I would note that Ron Paul does consider state laws making homosexuality a criminal offense to be Constitutional.

To me, foreign and economic policy trump this issue, and I personally believe that states wouldn't legislatively regress even if Lawrence v Texas were overturned. So while RP wouldn't be bad for gay rights by any means, let's not kid ourselves by claiming equality to racial persecution in Ron Paul's 'libertarian' vision of individual rights.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

wrong

The entire argument is ludicrous and non-sensical. Homosexuality is
wrong. Common sense says it's wrong. Morality says it's wrong. Biology
says it's wrong. Anatomy says it's wrong. Darwinism says it's wrong. The
Bible says it's wrong. Survival of the species says it's wrong. History
says it's wrong. Your mother says it's wrong. It's wrong, and everyone
knows it. Even those few 'misguided' souls who wax eloquent in it's
defense, for prurient reasons, know it.

I don't care what homosexuals do, privately, and quietly. 'Don't frighten
the horses, or the children.' I don't want to know about it. And if
anyone needs their *** kicked, it will be whoever tries it with, or
posits the concept to one of my children. The 'debate' is all about
legitimizing perverse sexual deviancy, and all parties involved are well
aware of the fact, unmerited discretion and wheedling compassion aside.
The degree of the degradation of our culture can be measured by the
seriousness with which we indulge narcissistic arguments promoting the
basest desires of a minuscule minority who throw ever louder hissy fits.
It sadden me that more fathers are unwilling to do the job the remnants
of a justice system have become too PC to do themselves.

 

[sophocles07]

First of all, you sound like a second post (psycho) troll. But...

The entire argument is ludicrous and non-sensical. Homosexuality is
wrong.

Nah.

Common sense says it's wrong.

What about masturbation?

Morality says it's wrong.

Whose morality? Falwell’s?

Biology says it's wrong.

That’s a joke, right?

Anatomy says it's wrong.

It works, don’t it?

Darwinism says it's wrong.

I don’t think it covers the matter.

The Bible says it's wrong.

Who gives a fuck?

Survival of the species says it's wrong.

That’s nonsense; most areas suffer from over-population.

History says it's wrong.

That doesn’t make sense.

Your mother says it's wrong.

Well, then it’s finished, I guess.

It's wrong, and everyone
knows it. Even those few 'misguided' souls who wax eloquent in it's
defense, for prurient reasons, know it.

You are demented.

I don't care what homosexuals do, privately, and quietly. 'Don't frighten
the horses, or the children.' I don't want to know about it. And if
anyone needs their *** kicked, it will be whoever tries it with, or
posits the concept to one of my children.

Alright, tough guy. Why don’t you go dance with Huckabee?

The 'debate' is all about
legitimizing perverse sexual deviancy, and all parties involved are well
aware of the fact, unmerited discretion and wheedling compassion aside.
The degree of the degradation of our culture can be measured by the
seriousness with which we indulge narcissistic arguments promoting the
basest desires of a minuscule minority who throw ever louder hissy fits.
It sadden me that more fathers are unwilling to do the job the remnants
of a justice system have become too PC to do themselves.

You are a fool if you think sexuality being open in society is a sign of degradation.

I’d say most kids not speaking but one language, not reading literature very widely, having no conception of the world they live in, etc., (all of this allowing for things like the Iraq war) are signs of degradation.

Christ’s gotchoo by the balls, man.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

dismissed

I've heard some other complaints here about sophistry07's adolescent taunts. I have to concur. It's a slight distraction from intelligent conversation. There's a way to 'ignore' this person? It's nearly universal in it's tedium, that ill-mannered secularist's arguments consist of throwing food, and hissy fits.... never addressing a point. But who can blame them for employing a self preservation tactic? One could wish that they'd leave debate to those few examples of their more cultured brethren.

 

[sophocles07]

If you call "intelligent conversation":

The entire argument is ludicrous and non-sensical. Homosexuality is
wrong. Common sense says it's wrong. Morality says it's wrong. Biology
says it's wrong. Anatomy says it's wrong. Darwinism says it's wrong. The
Bible says it's wrong. Survival of the species says it's wrong. History
says it's wrong. Your mother says it's wrong. It's wrong, and everyone
knows it. Even those few 'misguided' souls who wax eloquent in it's
defense, for prurient reasons, know it.

I don't care what homosexuals do, privately, and quietly. 'Don't frighten
the horses, or the children.' I don't want to know about it. And if
anyone needs their *** kicked, it will be whoever tries it with, or
posits the concept to one of my children. The 'debate' is all about
legitimizing perverse sexual deviancy, and all parties involved are well
aware of the fact, unmerited discretion and wheedling compassion aside.
The degree of the degradation of our culture can be measured by the
seriousness with which we indulge narcissistic arguments promoting the
basest desires of a minuscule minority who throw ever louder hissy fits.
It sadden me that more fathers are unwilling to do the job the remnants
of a justice system have become too PC to do themselves.

Then you're insane.

 

[sophocles07]

Also, I don't trust that you even support Ron Paul (you have FOUR posts, and all of them have been regarding how homosexuality is correct and how "God's law" is great).

 

[Cinnaboo]

The entire argument is ludicrous and non-sensical. Homosexuality is
wrong. Common sense says it's wrong. Morality says it's wrong. Biology
says it's wrong. Anatomy says it's wrong. Darwinism says it's wrong. The
Bible says it's wrong. Survival of the species says it's wrong. History
says it's wrong. Your mother says it's wrong. It's wrong, and everyone
knows it. Even those few 'misguided' souls who wax eloquent in it's
defense, for prurient reasons, know it.

I don't care what homosexuals do, privately, and quietly. 'Don't frighten
the horses, or the children.' I don't want to know about it. And if
anyone needs their *** kicked, it will be whoever tries it with, or
posits the concept to one of my children. The 'debate' is all about
legitimizing perverse sexual deviancy, and all parties involved are well
aware of the fact, unmerited discretion and wheedling compassion aside.
The degree of the degradation of our culture can be measured by the
seriousness with which we indulge narcissistic arguments promoting the
basest desires of a minuscule minority who throw ever louder hissy fits.
It sadden me that more fathers are unwilling to do the job the remnants
of a justice system have become too PC to do themselves.

What sort of policy would you like to see enacted?

 

[Macon GA]

Cinaboo.....

How did a point that I make become something you post on every reply? By posting it that way, you have taken it out of the context from whence it came....

As a side, I did go back and clarify that post. I realized after seeing your appendage that it does look pretty bad when it stands alone, apart from the original discussion.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

If you call "intelligent conversation":



Then you're insane.

For clarification, since this is obviously not an argument, is it thrown food or a hissy fit?

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

What sort of policy would you like to see enacted?

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

Anyone, right now, is free to make any kind of legal document they wish with anyone else - power of attorney, hospital visitation, etc.

Without the standard response of, "Oh, that would never happen.", answer me this: If two men cannot be denied legally wedded bliss because it would be 'mean', why can't three men and two women enjoy that privilege? Or Farmer Brown and his life partner, Bessie? Or a busload of consenting boyscouts and a pedophile?

 

[mtmedlin]

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

Anyone, right now, is free to make any kind of legal document they wish with anyone else - power of attorney, hospital visitation, etc.

Without the standard response of, "Oh, that would never happen.", answer me this: If two men cannot be denied legally wedded bliss because it would be 'mean', why can't three men and two women enjoy that privilege? Or Farmer Brown and his life partner, Bessie? Or a busload of consenting boyscouts and a pedophile?

I wouldnt mind any of that except the boyscouts and bessie who I assume is an animal because all associations are based on consent and children and animals cant legally give consent, even if they want to. All questions of what goverment should and should not regulate must be held to a simple test.
Does a persons actions harm another person or that persons property? If the answer is no, then the government has no vested interest in action.

the real answer isnt making gay marriage legal. The answer is why is the government regulating marriage at all. Its not in the constitution. A wedding should be between the two consenting humans. If they want to include a church and the church agrees, so be it. If the church doesnt agree because it violates their faith, then they are a private organization and can decline.

Does this answer your question?

 

[sophocles07]

For clarification, since this is obviously not an argument, is it thrown food or a hissy fit?

Hissy fit.

Without the standard response of, "Oh, that would never happen.", answer me this: If two men cannot be denied legally wedded bliss because it would be 'mean', why can't three men and two women enjoy that privilege?

Why not?

Or Farmer Brown and his life partner, Bessie?

What does this mean?

EDIT: Oh, a cow. Good one, Huckabee.

Or a busload of consenting boyscouts and a pedophile?

This should be obvious.

Ron Paul supporter should be able to answer this.


Let me say also, you seem to have a strong distaste for personal freedom for a Ron Paul supporter.

What other un-Ron Paul like views do you hold?

 

[Cinnaboo]

Cinaboo.....

How did a point that I make become something you post on every reply? By posting it that way, you have taken it out of the context from whence it came....

As a side, I did go back and clarify that post. I realized after seeing your appendage that it does look pretty bad when it stands alone, apart from the original discussion.

In defense of Cinnaboo:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1307918#post1307918

Sorry for off-topic.

 

[sophocles07]

I don't want to know about it. And if
anyone needs their *** kicked, it will be whoever tries it with, or
posits the concept to one of my children.

This in particular REALLY seems like an intelligent comment.

Go buy some brass knuckles and punch a brick wall, it'll expell some of that latent homoerotic energy you've quite obviously got built up in your back pocket.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

rabid individualism

I wouldnt mind any of that except the boyscouts and bessie who I assume is an animal because all associations are based on consent and children and animals cant legally give consent, even if they want to. All questions of what goverment should and should not regulate must be held to a simple test.
Does a persons actions harm another person or that persons property? If the answer is no, then the government has no vested interest in action.

the real answer isnt making gay marriage legal. The answer is why is the government regulating marriage at all. Its not in the constitution. A wedding should be between the two consenting humans. If they want to include a church and the church agrees, so be it. If the church doesnt agree because it violates their faith, then they are a private organization and can decline.

Does this answer your question?

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.

 

[Dirt Roads Scholar]

rabid individualism

I wouldnt mind any of that except the boyscouts and bessie who I assume is an animal because all associations are based on consent and children and animals cant legally give consent, even if they want to. All questions of what goverment should and should not regulate must be held to a simple test.
Does a persons actions harm another person or that persons property? If the answer is no, then the government has no vested interest in action.

the real answer isnt making gay marriage legal. The answer is why is the government regulating marriage at all. Its not in the constitution. A wedding should be between the two consenting humans. If they want to include a church and the church agrees, so be it. If the church doesnt agree because it violates their faith, then they are a private organization and can decline.

Does this answer your question?

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 restraint 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.