NY GOP candidate Carl Paladino blasts homosexuals

[Promontorium]

Six pages, and not one of you has quoted him correctly

one person correctly mentioned he didn't say what the text reads, but then they spun it.

What he actually said was worse


Some excerpts from article

I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don't want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option - it isn't

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/nyregion/11paladino.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


This is typical Christian authoritarianism. You don't like gays, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. you think people existing in your vicinity is an opression upon you, so you make laws regulating their behavior. The lord rested on Sunday, so it should be illegal to open a business on Sunday. The bible says homosexuality is wrong, so sodomy should be illegal. This isn't how rational people respectful people should be treating each other.

This is the reason above all other reasons I support Ron Paul, LIBERTY MEANS NOT FORCING OTHERS TO ACT LIKE YOU

Only in your authoritarian overpriviliged upper caste brains does it make sense to ban gay marriage because you don't want it taught in school.

Nevermind science, that it is a fact that sexuality is genetic and not a
choice, god forbid reality enter this discussion of 'how to subjugate others'.

I suppose if you don't want your kids to learn about failure in school, we should put bums in concentration camps. If you don't want kids to learn about drugs in school, we should ban all prescriptions and let old people die terrible painful deaths.


Nobody is fucking asking schools to teach about homosexuality. You are ignorant. You are tyrants and hypocrites.

Marriage existed long before Christianity or Judaism. It doesn't have anything to do with God, that's between you and your faith, which isn't the government's business, but since you Christians demanded the law get involved, you have no right to dictate faith.

You can not support liberty, and be for banning homosexuality.
You can not support liberty, and be for segregating the populace.


And you can't have a grasp on science if you think sexuality is a choice. If you believe people choose to be gay, you try it. Do it. Just be gay for a day. Not fucking possible. It is in your chromosomes.


You're true fear is accepting reality. Homosexuality is natural, therefore God damns people for the way he created them. Or God doesn't exist. You justify torturing, abusing, subjugating humans for the way they were born, and you excuse it by saying they choose it. You are bullies, you are cowards. Some of your children will be homosexual, and you will lie to them, you will raise them to hate themselves, you will make them feel like freaks to no end, to no purpose, save your own personal comfort. Gays don't make you "comfortable" so you oppress, and deride, and degrade. If that is liberty, if that is righteous, then Satan is steering the vehicle.

 

[Cowlesy]

Six pages, and not one of you has quoted him correctly

one person correctly mentioned he didn't say what the text reads, but then they spun it.

What he actually said was worse


Some excerpts from article




This is typical Christian authoritarianism. You don't like gays, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. you think people existing in your vicinity is an opression upon you, so you make laws regulating their behavior. The lord rested on Sunday, so it should be illegal to open a business on Sunday. The bible says homosexuality is wrong, so sodomy should be illegal. This isn't how rational people respectful people should be treating each other.

This is the reason above all other reasons I support Ron Paul, LIBERTY MEANS NOT FORCING OTHERS TO ACT LIKE YOU

Only in your authoritarian overpriviliged upper caste brains does it make sense to ban gay marriage because you don't want it taught in school.

Nevermind science, that it is a fact that sexuality is genetic and not a
choice, god forbid reality enter this discussion of 'how to subjugate others'.

I suppose if you don't want your kids to learn about failure in school, we should put bums in concentration camps. If you don't want kids to learn about drugs in school, we should ban all prescriptions and let old people die terrible painful deaths.


Nobody is fucking asking schools to teach about homosexuality. You are ignorant. You are tyrants and hypocrites.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/nyregion/11paladino.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

“My feelings on homosexuality are unequivocal,” Paladino said. “I have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. My only reservation is marriage … I have a lot of homosexuals working in my organization.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/...he_doesn_eRgjusGieXP1ZqfoxTtYZM#ixzz125p08pLj

What a horrible, evil, Christian Authoritarian tyrant!!!

 

[Dr.3D]

snip~ The lord rested on Sunday, so it should be illegal to open a business on Sunday. ~snip

What?

Sunday is the first day of the week.
God rested on the seventh.

If you want to have no business on the Sabbath, you have to have them closed on the seventh day, not the first.

 

[erowe1]

Six pages, and not one of you has quoted him correctly

one person correctly mentioned he didn't say what the text reads, but then they spun it.

What he actually said was worse

I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don't want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option - it isn't

So I take it that you think the correct position is that children should be brainwashed into thinking homosexuality is an equally valid option?

 

[pacelli]

What?

Sunday is the first day of the week.
God rested on the seventh.

If you want to have no business on the Sabbath, you have to have them closed on the seventh day, not the first.

Thank you for pointing out the truth.

 

[Agorism]

Why is the Paladino "hulking out" thread that I made get put in off topics.

He's clearly hulking out.

 

[Justinjj1]

This guy seems like a real idiot. You don't choose to be gay, you don't automatically wake up one day and think to yourself "you know what? I think I want to try some cock." I don't know anyone except for redneck fundamentalists who actually believe that you choose to be gay, that's completely absurd.

But what is scary, is that this guy seems to have some deep-rooted hatred for gays and he is potentially going to have a lot of power. It's one thing for a private citizen to voice his displeasure about gay people, but it's a whole other issue when you have a politician that is going out gay-bashing in his campaign rallies.

 

[MelissaWV]

Where the hell to start with what this thread has become...

I wonder if he supports tax or other government benefits for married couples.

That's a good question. I'd support tax breaks for households, if it could be easily proven that a household was cooperatively paying bills and contributing to society... but then again that'd be a hell of a thing to try to prove. It also would be superceded by the fact I'd support wiping out taxation altogether, really. My earlier comment, though, still stands: this shouldn't be news, and the way the question was asked (whether or not it was "appropriate" to have these views about homosexuals) was very telling. Beyond that? I don't know this guy from the next guy, and chances are after a term or two no one else would, either.

What about the dysfunctional heterosexuals? Where do they fit in?

They usually post on internet forums Seriously, though, the "dysfunctional" quote seems to be misattributed to this guy. Even so, I don't care if he dislikes gays. This really only impacts someone if he makes it his policy to discriminate and make life hellish for homosexuals, which I don't see any indication of in what he's talking about. He doesn't support "gay marriage"? Most folks don't. I'd love the Government out of everyone's "marriage." If, as the previous person I quoted pointed out, the taxation aspect were removed... you could simply add a partner to your will/living will, buy a house with them, have a spiritual ceremony, and introduce them as your husband/wife, etc.. The notion of needing a piece of paper to say that you'll be together "forever" is silly as hell, but financially necessary these days.

Marriage. The article said that he would veto any bill granting equal rights under the law.

See above. If the country would stop discriminating in favor of married folks (not to mention folks who have kids!), this wouldn't be an issue at all. Let's suppose you allow gay marriage by law. Okay. Now what? Why do married couples (hetero or homo) get to enjoy any benefits which are different than single people? Moreover, why is it that you get tax breaks for having children? Man, it's tough being a single person who doesn't want kids! I don't have equal rights even in this hypothetical where rainbow weddings are legal in New York.

* * *

Last but not least...

Six pages, and not one of you has quoted him correctly

one person correctly mentioned he didn't say what the text reads, but then they spun it.

What he actually said was worse


Some excerpts from article

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/nyregion/11paladino.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


This is typical Christian authoritarianism. You don't like gays, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. you think people existing in your vicinity is an opression upon you, so you make laws regulating their behavior. The lord rested on Sunday, so it should be illegal to open a business on Sunday. The bible says homosexuality is wrong, so sodomy should be illegal. This isn't how rational people respectful people should be treating each other.

This is the reason above all other reasons I support Ron Paul, LIBERTY MEANS NOT FORCING OTHERS TO ACT LIKE YOU

Only in your authoritarian overpriviliged upper caste brains does it make sense to ban gay marriage because you don't want it taught in school.

Nevermind science, that it is a fact that sexuality is genetic and not a
choice, god forbid reality enter this discussion of 'how to subjugate others'.

I suppose if you don't want your kids to learn about failure in school, we should put bums in concentration camps. If you don't want kids to learn about drugs in school, we should ban all prescriptions and let old people die terrible painful deaths.


Nobody is fucking asking schools to teach about homosexuality. You are ignorant. You are tyrants and hypocrites.

Marriage existed long before Christianity or Judaism. It doesn't have anything to do with God, that's between you and your faith, which isn't the government's business, but since you Christians demanded the law get involved, you have no right to dictate faith.

You can not support liberty, and be for banning homosexuality.
You can not support liberty, and be for segregating the populace.


And you can't have a grasp on science if you think sexuality is a choice. If you believe people choose to be gay, you try it. Do it. Just be gay for a day. Not fucking possible. It is in your chromosomes.


You're true fear is accepting reality. Homosexuality is natural, therefore God damns people for the way he created them. Or God doesn't exist. You justify torturing, abusing, subjugating humans for the way they were born, and you excuse it by saying they choose it. You are bullies, you are cowards. Some of your children will be homosexual, and you will lie to them, you will raise them to hate themselves, you will make them feel like freaks to no end, to no purpose, save your own personal comfort. Gays don't make you "comfortable" so you oppress, and deride, and degrade. If that is liberty, if that is righteous, then Satan is steering the vehicle.

Another post generalizing "the Christians." How sad. Well, this Christian-non-hetero is confused. Is the poster implying I am self-loathing?

People do "try" to be gay on quite a regular basis. If you don't believe me, go out somewhere there are loads of drunk women, and watch the line between "I'm not a fuckin' lesbo" and "Do you think I'm hawwwt?" blur until there's just a big mishmash of T&A grinding around until sobriety kicks in. Without being entirely explicit, there are reasons that female homosexuality/bisexuality is tried out on a more regular basis, and even why it's more favorably viewed in general. Let's just say the mechanics of the actions commonly involved tend to be less complicated and more broadly enjoyed on one side than the other.

I believe what was attempted earlier between torch and erowe was to address this in a roundabout way. People aren't "born" anything 100% as far as behavior most of the time. People are born with tendancies (some very STRONG ones, some not so strong) towards obesity, or towards addiction, and so on, at least as far as I can tell. I don't see how this would be any different. Your environment can greatly impact whether or not you ever act upon your curiosities, if you even have them. Other overriding factors, like the desire to go through life unbothered or to start a "traditional family" can keep some folks in the closet and living a lie for a very, very long time. It's not as simple as choosing just based on what you'd like your genitals to do and get done to them.

But back to the post I quoted...

This is the reason above all other reasons I support Ron Paul, LIBERTY MEANS NOT FORCING OTHERS TO ACT LIKE YOU

Only in your authoritarian overpriviliged upper caste brains does it make sense to ban gay marriage because you don't want it taught in school.

There is a contradiction here. I also like the idea of others not forcing me to act a certain way. That also means, to me, that they wouldn't dare to teach my children to think something is normal if I am 100% opposed to it. Putting aside for a second the fact that "public school" not existing would solve this problem, realize that the rest of your post seems to suggest it would be intolerant NOT to teach homosexuality in schools. Forgive my ignorance, but do you really think that is the purpose of schooling children? Outside of relevant, age-appropriate mentions in social studies or anatomy, I can't see the point of dragging homosexuality into the classroom.

The majority of the post is unaddressable, as it operates on the premise that "we" (everyone but the poster and, I guess, non-Christian homosexuals who agree with his assertions?) are bigoted, stupid, intolerant bastards.

The interesting part, poster, is that Ron Paul would support our right to be precisely that.

 

[BamaAla]

Why would you want to discriminate against single people?

I want to be "married" too.

We might as well sanction the union of one person and call it a day.

Marriage is entirely a spiritual union. Let's allow New York to do as it wills.

I don't think the government should be involved at all, but unfortunately they are. Since this isn't some abstract idea, gay couples should be afforded the same rights as straight couples.

If you want to make the argument a theoretical ordeal about how things would be in libertarian utopia, we can do that; however, the New York candidate is operating in the world of how things are; that's where I'm coming from as well.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This is typical Christian authoritarianism. You don't like gays, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. you think people existing in your vicinity is an opression upon you, so you make laws regulating their behavior. The lord rested on Sunday, so it should be illegal to open a business on Sunday. The bible says homosexuality is wrong, so sodomy should be illegal. This isn't how rational people respectful people should be treating each other.

This is the reason above all other reasons I support Ron Paul, LIBERTY MEANS NOT FORCING OTHERS TO ACT LIKE YOU

Only in your authoritarian overpriviliged upper caste brains does it make sense to ban gay marriage because you don't want it taught in school.

Nevermind science, that it is a fact that sexuality is genetic and not a
choice, god forbid reality enter this discussion of 'how to subjugate others'.

There is no hard science that supports the "homosexuality is genetic" secular social liberal dogma. The historic and biblical view is that homosexual acts are immoral and that marriage is a religious rite defined as a union between a man and a woman---it is not something the state is supposed to redefine, to accommodate a political pressure group in the first place. That is the context for saying it shouldn't be taught in schools. The authoritarianism is coming from the side that wants to cram acceptance of gay marriage on the rest of the population. If the religious right is not supposed to impose their views on the masses, why does the social left think they have a right to?

 

[speciallyblend]

i wish republicans would start bashing the right-wingers of the gop! The right-wing of the gop is one reason i never became a republican until i heard Ron Paul!!!

The Biggest threat to Liberty and Freedom in the GOP is the right-wingers in the gop!!

 

[speciallyblend]

oops

 

[torchbearer]

i wish republicans would start bashing the right-wingers of the gop! The right-wing of the gop is one reason i never became a republican until i heard Ron Paul!!!

The Biggest threat to Liberty and Freedom in the GOP is the right-wingers in the gop!!

they are all about freedom for themselves, not so much for everyone else.

 

[libertarian4321]

Carl Paladino is a piece of shit. All this anti gay bullshit is what delegitimizes the stupid ass Tea Party.

That's one way to put it, lol.

I was just going to say that he seems to be an angry, mean spirited SOB.

Which is fine- it made it easy for me to convince my Dad (a lifelong Repubiican) to vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Republicans can win in NY, as long as they aren't nasty, hard ass social conservatives.

Paladino is done- he has no chance to win now. Folks may as well vote Libertarian.

 

[AuH20]

i wish republicans would start bashing the right-wingers of the gop! The right-wing of the gop is one reason i never became a republican until i heard Ron Paul!!!

The Biggest threat to Liberty and Freedom in the GOP is the right-wingers in the gop!!

I think you're getting carried away.

 

[erowe1]

i wish republicans would start bashing the right-wingers of the gop! The right-wing of the gop is one reason i never became a republican until i heard Ron Paul!!!

The Biggest threat to Liberty and Freedom in the GOP is the right-wingers in the gop!!

The right wing of the GOP is Ron Paul.

 

[MelissaWV]

There is no hard science that supports the "homosexuality is genetic" secular social liberal dogma. The historic and biblical view is that homosexual acts are immoral and that marriage is a religious rite defined as a union between a man and a woman---it is not something the state is supposed to redefine, to accommodate a political pressure group in the first place. That is the context for saying it shouldn't be taught in schools. The authoritarianism is coming from the side that wants to cram acceptance of gay marriage on the rest of the population. If the religious right is not supposed to impose their views on the masses, why does the social left think they have a right to?

It depends on which history you are reading, and how far back you are going.

Marriage is, at its core, a contract.

Once upon a time it was (and theoretically still is to many people) a contract between a man and a woman, made before the highest authority (God, represented by the clergy who marries them).

More recently, it is a contract between (usually) a man and a woman, made before the highest authority (God or, sometimes, the State represented by the Justice of the Peace who marries them).

Rewind back to the nautical days, and the highest authority was often the captain of a ship.

Go back further, and marriage was often a contract between political parties, nations, tribes, or other such groups... and the man and woman often didn't know one another very well. That's fair enough, since often they wouldn't see each other except to conceive an heir or two. The woman in question was likely to be surrounded by fellow wives and concubines, though, so she wasn't going to get bored!

Around that same time and even farther back, marriage was also sometimes used to keep it within the family... literally. You'd marry your cousin, or even your sister, or your brother's widowed wife.

 

[erowe1]

Marriage is, at its core, a contract.

Once upon a time it was (and theoretically still is to many people) a contract between a man and a woman, made before the highest authority (God, represented by the clergy who marries them).

More recently, it is a contract between (usually) a man and a woman, made before the highest authority (God or, sometimes, the State represented by the Justice of the Peace who marries them).

My understanding is that it's worse than that. State marriage licenses actually make the state itself a party in the contract.

This brochure has a couple of examples that illustrate that:
http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

 

[Peace&Freedom]

It depends on which history you are reading, and how far back you are going.

Marriage is, at its core, a contract.

Once upon a time it was (and theoretically still is to many people) a contract between a man and a woman, made before the highest authority (God, represented by the clergy who marries them).

More recently, it is a contract between (usually) a man and a woman, made before the highest authority (God or, sometimes, the State represented by the Justice of the Peace who marries them).

Once upon a time, the sun rose up in the east, and the event was defined as "sunrise." Guess what, it still rises in the east, and event is still "sunrise" regardless of whether night worshippers "more recently" wish to redefine sunset as "sunrise." Those same night partisans would doubtless justify their parsing by saying "depends on which astronomy you are reading, and how far back you are going."

Marraige is a religious covenant between a person and God, to be faithful to a spouse in a marital bond. It is as much specifically religious in nature, and always understood to be such, as is baptism, communion and other rites. In thousands of years, it was NEVER construed as a secular deal the state uses to defacto decree legitimacy to groups claiming to have "rights." The claim it is a secular contract is part of the redefinition process. Meanwhile, marriage in fact remains a religious rite, as the sun rises in the east.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The right wing of the GOP is Ron Paul.

Yup.