Is Ron Paul anti-gay?

[AggieforPaul]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d096:55:./temp/~bdq8IU:@@@L&summ2=m&http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d096&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+Paul++Ron))+00900))

H.R. 7955:

"Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style."

I know this bill was bill was proposed 27 years ago, but still, its one of his bills that bothers me.

 

[axiomata]

"Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds..."

I already know how he voted on it no matter what follows.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

No he isnt antigay.,. he is just anti-federal govt paying for this stuff.. This is a state issue not a federal one

 

[johngr]

I think he's anti "gay rights".

 

[ladyliberty]

I think he isn't "anti" anyone - he just does not one any one group to have preference over any other one group - we are all individuals. It upset Janet Folger to no end when he said he would not treat homosexuals any different than anyone else - leading some Christians to believe that he is pro-homosexual, using the old "if he's not FOR us he must be AGIANST us" mentality!

 

[AggieforPaul]

But he introduced this bill which would seemingly cut off all funds for any place that says its ok to be gay. That seems a little extreme to me.

Im curious about this bill in particular because its a popular rebuttal when Im arguing against liberals.

 

[Sandy]

Why does that bother you? The issue is Federal funds. I repeat....Federal funds.

 

[VoteRonPaul2008]

NO! remeber Paul is only against federal funding and war..

HE VOTED NO TO BUSH'S AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIGE.. AND STATED EVERYONE IS ENTITTLED TO PERSONAL LIBERITY..

 

[Kregener]

And what if he was?

I stand against homosexuality, but would NEVER be for ANY "legislation" that infringed on their rights.

Neither would Ron Paul.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Perhaps you could point out the part of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to spend our taxes on promoting a lifestyle choice? If this is justifiable for homosexuals, then why not heterosexuals, or polygamists, or pedophiles, or goat-fuckers, etc.. etc.. etc..

It's no business of the federal government, and I don't really care to have my tax dollars spent to propagandize a lifestyle choice to me.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

He's for privatizing marriage.

 

[angrydragon]

No, read that bill again. It's taking more of our tax money to give money to other people. Ron Paul is for the liberty of anyone and everyone.

 

[Brutus]

You guys. Don't you know, whatever isn't illegal must be subsidized? Since we all worship the State now, that is the way of it. What a bunch of neandrathals.

Oh, wait, I speak as a fool.

 

[Fyretrohl]

Well, most of what I would have said has already been said. However, I will note this, creating special rights and priviliges for a class of citizens means you are discriminating against others. To do so is against the law. Gay Rights is about discriminating against the Non Gays, in the end. It should be...EQUAL treatment.

 

[vertesc]

call me a broken record, but afaik his stance on gay rights is the same as his stance on black rights etc: that the government should be completely colorblind. Special status for none.

The bill is is interesting because it targets homosexuality though. Please let me know by pm if you find anything more substantive than the vague answers you've seen on this thread thus far.

 

[travismofo]

call me a broken record, but afaik his stance on gay rights is the same as his stance on black rights etc: that the government should be completely colorblind. Special status for none.

The bill is is interesting because it targets homosexuality though. Please let me know by pm if you find anything more substantive than the vague answers you've seen on this thread thus far.

The Constitution does not authorize money for this. Read up Article I Section VIII.

End of story.

 

[Midnight77]

I agree. This is a state issue. Liberal states like California and New York, won't have a problem with this issue whatsoever.

 

[user]

Obviously a no vote makes sense, but if he proposed this bill himself why the specific language regarding homosexuals? Why wouldn't the bill oppose Federal funding of anything similar?

 

[Bradley in DC]

I promise you Dr. Paul is not anti-gay. Anti-federal funds is another matter...

 

[user]

Everything I've heard from him up until now suggests he is not anti-gay, but if he proposed this bill himself why does it specifically target homosexuality?