Gays
- Thread starter SCREMF
- Start date
Staupostek
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 345
He thinks they are individuals just like anyone else, and therefore are entitled to the rights that all Americans enjoy. If you are talking about gay marriage, he is for the states addressing it instead of the federal government. At least, this is what my impression of his positions are from reading his positions.
Actually, his position would be more along the lines that gov't should have little or no role in regulating the matter whatsoever....state or federal. Marriage is a contractual or a religious matter between consenting adults.
I feel the same way, and thats what I expected your answer to be. A friend replied to me with this quote though.
"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
I really dont see what is wrong with it.
Also, I got this response. I was not born in America and English is my 3rd language. So if anyone can help me out thats appreciated.
Let's be clear, I barely want to have a conversation with you in English. Also, if you fail to realize why Ron Paul was not included in that poll question then you know very little about the mainstream media.
It says a lot to me about the self-declared "free-thinking" Dr. Paul supporters that a simple argument about his inviability being the reason why he wasn't included in that poll has turned into a number of arguments about how I'm a socialist and not a real American or, to use your oh-so-clever turn of phrase, one of "so many sheeple."
From my observations it seems that either:
a) Ron Paul supporters have such a ridiculous inferiority complex that they feel the need to expound endlessly on the topic of their chosen horse's attributes whenever his name is raised, even if his policies have nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation.
-or-
b) Ron Paul supporters are so desperate for an opportunity to talk about him that they will claw at any and all possible chances to do so whether or not anybody is listening.
Apparently, my ability to understand the role of public opinion polling in American political culture, especially as it pertains to itself (which really is the issue at hand here), means that I am some sort of unbelievable moron who is "brainwashed my (sic) mainstream media."
The saddest part about the Paul supporters that I've confronted in the last two days is that their arguments extremely rarely contain anything more lucid than an assertion that not supporting hardcore libertarianism wholeheartedly means that I've been brainwashed/am a socialist/hate the founding fathers/am not a real American.
Basically what the argument has broken down to is that the only way to convince you people that I am capable of thinking for myself is to let YOU think for me.
"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
I really dont see what is wrong with it.
Also, I got this response. I was not born in America and English is my 3rd language. So if anyone can help me out thats appreciated.
Let's be clear, I barely want to have a conversation with you in English. Also, if you fail to realize why Ron Paul was not included in that poll question then you know very little about the mainstream media.
It says a lot to me about the self-declared "free-thinking" Dr. Paul supporters that a simple argument about his inviability being the reason why he wasn't included in that poll has turned into a number of arguments about how I'm a socialist and not a real American or, to use your oh-so-clever turn of phrase, one of "so many sheeple."
From my observations it seems that either:
a) Ron Paul supporters have such a ridiculous inferiority complex that they feel the need to expound endlessly on the topic of their chosen horse's attributes whenever his name is raised, even if his policies have nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation.
-or-
b) Ron Paul supporters are so desperate for an opportunity to talk about him that they will claw at any and all possible chances to do so whether or not anybody is listening.
Apparently, my ability to understand the role of public opinion polling in American political culture, especially as it pertains to itself (which really is the issue at hand here), means that I am some sort of unbelievable moron who is "brainwashed my (sic) mainstream media."
The saddest part about the Paul supporters that I've confronted in the last two days is that their arguments extremely rarely contain anything more lucid than an assertion that not supporting hardcore libertarianism wholeheartedly means that I've been brainwashed/am a socialist/hate the founding fathers/am not a real American.
Basically what the argument has broken down to is that the only way to convince you people that I am capable of thinking for myself is to let YOU think for me.
RustyBrewster
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 117
This quote is from the newsletter that went out under his name, but that he did not write and was not aware of it's contents.
I find that quote appalling, but I know that is not what Dr. Paul believes and that he has been one of the strongest supporters of civil liberties for everyone (gay/straight/black/white/yellow/mormon/atheist/branch davidian/etc. and everything in between..) in Congress.
TER
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 17,946
Hi Scremf, we have been very frustrated the past two days because of our impatience and weakness. Please forgive us.
If you have time, you should study American history and the Constitution and try to understand what the American Revolution was about.
If you have time, you should study American history and the Constitution and try to understand what the American Revolution was about.
Cinnaboo
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 94
Well, I find it pretty offensive. Fortunately, as Brewster clarified, Ron Paul did not write it. This quote (and several others regarding race and sexuality) were taken from "The Ron Paul Report", which was a libertarian-minded newsletter that ran for decades. Due to the longevity of its publication and the numerous responsibilities of Dr. Paul, he often turned the entire process over to ghost writers.
Recently, The New Republic pushed a piece which brought these racist, homophobic quotes to public scrutiny. Ron Paul's defense is that he has never said or written anything similar to the quotations, and keep in mind that Ron Paul has been giving speeches and writing essays all his life. When Tucker Carlson interviewed the author of the Republic article, he asked him if anyone had ever heard Dr. Paul say anything similar to these alleged remarks. The author could not name an instance, and admitted as much.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lrM6R5fyzqA
I did not see your language comment before I wrote that first response. I hope it's not difficult. Sorry.
Well, this other response starts by saying he doesn't want to talk to you because of your language trouble.
He goes on to say nothing about Ron Paul. It's just an insult to his supporters.
Not worth your time.
Cinnaboo
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 94
Yes, Ron Paul would ideally remove all levels of government from the marriage issue, making it more of a commitment ceremony than a legal contract -- which for most people would delegate it to the church, because they see it as a religious ceremony. On a practical level, it would depend entirely on the couple.
I would personally seal the deal on the catwalk of a lighthouse.
But government non-involvement is an ideal, not achievable without major reforms. The way things are now, Ron Paul backs policies that delegate the gay marriage issue to the states.
hillertexas
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 5,933
http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=66&id=18013
GayWired Media Republican Endorsement: Ron Paul
Article Date: 01/31/2008
One candidate called our mere existence in the military an 'intolerable risk'. Another equated gay marriage to the 'collapse of family'. And a third likened gay sex to bestiality. As an LGBT media company, finding a Republican to confidently support for office proved an arduous task—in fact, several members of our staff argued supporting anyone from the Republican party would be irresponsible.
Yet a percentage of the LGBT community are registered Republican and Independent and support conservative issues, so the research began.
At first glance, none of the candidates for president on the Republican side express anything resembling a strong commitment to LGBT rights. In fact, many express the opposite. But one holds a strong commitment to state’s rights—a commitment that, thus far, has protected LGBT rights at the federal level while discouraging any amendment to the constitution that would prohibit same sex marriage.
Coupled with his commitment to ending the war in Iraq and putting an immediate end to this costly and misleading charade, Ron Paul may look like the dark horse to lead America beginning in January, 2009, but he’s far better suited for the role than many of his fellow party members would have you believe.
Ron Paul is that rare politician who has gone out on a limb—the only Republican nominee to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution, he says the war in Iraq was sold to Americans with false information and if elected president, he would begin yanking troops out of the Middle East immediately—no disrespect to the issue of gay marriage, but as far as we’re concerned, ending the war is the most important issue at stake this election.
Though Paul isn’t known to be an avid supporter of gay rights, he opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, has said “don’t ask, don’t tell” fails because it doesn’t take into account heterosexual behavior that is disruptive to service and has said he has no interest in interfering with two individuals in a social, sexual or religious sense.
That said, he was an outspoken critic of the Supreme Court’s decision on Lawrence v. Texas which deemed sodomy laws unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. Though he called the law ridiculous, his support of states rights, he argued, gives the State of Texas the right to regulate sex using local standards.
A consistency that, while bizarre, is almost refreshing. His view on the rights of the individual and of the state have defined his entire career. Better the devil you know or the devil who shape shifts depending on how he’s doing in the polls?
Introducing Mitt Romney: Flip-flopper.
As Governor of Massachusetts, the first and only state in America to pass legislation in support of gay marriage, Romney has since come out against our right to marry—and against civil unions as well.
Not that John McCain is any better. The most avidly pro-war candidate was quoted last year as saying “…open homosexuality within the military presents an intolerable risk…” in reference to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. In Arizona, he supported a measure to ban not only gay marriage but any government benefits to unmarried couples. And only this week his campaign used “robo-calls” during the Florida primary to point out Romney’s former record on LGBT issues, effectively using our community to smear his competitor and, in the process, anoint himself the more intolerant candidate.
Rudy Giuliani actually had a long history of supporting LGBT issues, but much like his failed presidential bid, that support dwindled . During his tenure as mayor of NYC, he supported domestic partnerships, anti-hate crimes legislation and appointed LGBT individuals to key roles in his administration. He even dressed in drag on more than one occasion. But the Giuliani who ran for president couldn’t throw us under the bus fast enough—when talks turned to his record on LGBT issues, he backed away from his past and pandered to the right.
And Mike Huckabee’s record on LGBT issues is so bad, it warrants its own column—an anti endorsement for president.
In the end, it comes down to the issues—if Iraq is a sticking point, the vote goes to Ron Paul. On LGBT issues, Paul won’t go out on a limb for our community, but as a Libertarian whose legacy will show he fought to stay out of American’s personal lives, he won’t be digging around for ways to limit our civil liberties.
© 2007 GayWired.com; All Rights Reserved
COMMENTS
I Spoke w/ R.P. About Gay Issues
Submitted by: MrZach on Thursday, January 31 2008 17:59:11
I had about 5 minutes to discuss 'gay issues' with Ron Paul when I met him in Myrtle Beach, SC. It was refreshing to hear from him that, although he doesn't personally condone the gay lifestyle, he spoke out very strongly against how deplorable it is the way people are treated for their lifestyle choices, especially their sexuality. He seems VERY sympathetic to the cause! I was amazed! We started the conversation talking about military matters (we were both in the Air Force), and I asked him about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as well as the hundreds of linguists (some of them my friends) who were kicked out for their sexuality. He said it was a shame and that 'DNDT' was a bad rule and it didn't make any sense to discriminate against people who are doing a good job and aren't being disruptive. I mentioned the prevailing idea that "the mere presence of a homosexual" is "disruptive" to military personnel, and he completely dismissed that idea, saying "I just don't think thats true." Finally! Someone who has a clue! (99.9% of the people I ran into in the military said they didn't care one bit if their fellow soldier, seaman, airman, or marine was gay - and even those who said they *did* say they would care said they were really just angry at "gays who flaunt it"). Ron Paul also said that since states regulate marriage there should be no federal laws about it - and he said he had no problem with states allowing gay marriage. I wonder what his position would be if he were running for a state level office, but... I think he thinks so "federal powers" and "individual rights" minded that he probably doesn't consider those things - as long as states are within the constitution. We ended the conversation on a very positive note: Ron Paul is convinced that our culture is getting better and that someday these kinds of ridiculous discrimination issues will be a thing of the past and will hardly be talked about anymore.
GayWired Media Republican Endorsement: Ron Paul
Article Date: 01/31/2008
One candidate called our mere existence in the military an 'intolerable risk'. Another equated gay marriage to the 'collapse of family'. And a third likened gay sex to bestiality. As an LGBT media company, finding a Republican to confidently support for office proved an arduous task—in fact, several members of our staff argued supporting anyone from the Republican party would be irresponsible.
Yet a percentage of the LGBT community are registered Republican and Independent and support conservative issues, so the research began.
At first glance, none of the candidates for president on the Republican side express anything resembling a strong commitment to LGBT rights. In fact, many express the opposite. But one holds a strong commitment to state’s rights—a commitment that, thus far, has protected LGBT rights at the federal level while discouraging any amendment to the constitution that would prohibit same sex marriage.
Coupled with his commitment to ending the war in Iraq and putting an immediate end to this costly and misleading charade, Ron Paul may look like the dark horse to lead America beginning in January, 2009, but he’s far better suited for the role than many of his fellow party members would have you believe.
Ron Paul is that rare politician who has gone out on a limb—the only Republican nominee to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution, he says the war in Iraq was sold to Americans with false information and if elected president, he would begin yanking troops out of the Middle East immediately—no disrespect to the issue of gay marriage, but as far as we’re concerned, ending the war is the most important issue at stake this election.
Though Paul isn’t known to be an avid supporter of gay rights, he opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, has said “don’t ask, don’t tell” fails because it doesn’t take into account heterosexual behavior that is disruptive to service and has said he has no interest in interfering with two individuals in a social, sexual or religious sense.
That said, he was an outspoken critic of the Supreme Court’s decision on Lawrence v. Texas which deemed sodomy laws unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. Though he called the law ridiculous, his support of states rights, he argued, gives the State of Texas the right to regulate sex using local standards.
A consistency that, while bizarre, is almost refreshing. His view on the rights of the individual and of the state have defined his entire career. Better the devil you know or the devil who shape shifts depending on how he’s doing in the polls?
Introducing Mitt Romney: Flip-flopper.
As Governor of Massachusetts, the first and only state in America to pass legislation in support of gay marriage, Romney has since come out against our right to marry—and against civil unions as well.
Not that John McCain is any better. The most avidly pro-war candidate was quoted last year as saying “…open homosexuality within the military presents an intolerable risk…” in reference to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. In Arizona, he supported a measure to ban not only gay marriage but any government benefits to unmarried couples. And only this week his campaign used “robo-calls” during the Florida primary to point out Romney’s former record on LGBT issues, effectively using our community to smear his competitor and, in the process, anoint himself the more intolerant candidate.
Rudy Giuliani actually had a long history of supporting LGBT issues, but much like his failed presidential bid, that support dwindled . During his tenure as mayor of NYC, he supported domestic partnerships, anti-hate crimes legislation and appointed LGBT individuals to key roles in his administration. He even dressed in drag on more than one occasion. But the Giuliani who ran for president couldn’t throw us under the bus fast enough—when talks turned to his record on LGBT issues, he backed away from his past and pandered to the right.
And Mike Huckabee’s record on LGBT issues is so bad, it warrants its own column—an anti endorsement for president.
In the end, it comes down to the issues—if Iraq is a sticking point, the vote goes to Ron Paul. On LGBT issues, Paul won’t go out on a limb for our community, but as a Libertarian whose legacy will show he fought to stay out of American’s personal lives, he won’t be digging around for ways to limit our civil liberties.
© 2007 GayWired.com; All Rights Reserved
COMMENTS
I Spoke w/ R.P. About Gay Issues
Submitted by: MrZach on Thursday, January 31 2008 17:59:11
I had about 5 minutes to discuss 'gay issues' with Ron Paul when I met him in Myrtle Beach, SC. It was refreshing to hear from him that, although he doesn't personally condone the gay lifestyle, he spoke out very strongly against how deplorable it is the way people are treated for their lifestyle choices, especially their sexuality. He seems VERY sympathetic to the cause! I was amazed! We started the conversation talking about military matters (we were both in the Air Force), and I asked him about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as well as the hundreds of linguists (some of them my friends) who were kicked out for their sexuality. He said it was a shame and that 'DNDT' was a bad rule and it didn't make any sense to discriminate against people who are doing a good job and aren't being disruptive. I mentioned the prevailing idea that "the mere presence of a homosexual" is "disruptive" to military personnel, and he completely dismissed that idea, saying "I just don't think thats true." Finally! Someone who has a clue! (99.9% of the people I ran into in the military said they didn't care one bit if their fellow soldier, seaman, airman, or marine was gay - and even those who said they *did* say they would care said they were really just angry at "gays who flaunt it"). Ron Paul also said that since states regulate marriage there should be no federal laws about it - and he said he had no problem with states allowing gay marriage. I wonder what his position would be if he were running for a state level office, but... I think he thinks so "federal powers" and "individual rights" minded that he probably doesn't consider those things - as long as states are within the constitution. We ended the conversation on a very positive note: Ron Paul is convinced that our culture is getting better and that someday these kinds of ridiculous discrimination issues will be a thing of the past and will hardly be talked about anymore.
TurtleBurger
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 983
The government should not infringe on gays' right to marry. It should also not infringe on my right to decline to recognize such a marriage.
NaT805
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 241
Similar threads
