NY GOP candidate Carl Paladino blasts homosexuals

[Daamien]

Why can't these social conservatives just focus on consensus-building limited government platforms instead of shaping their public policy around their personal religious and moral beliefs?

Honestly, Why should I care what Paladino thinks about homosexuality? His personal views are no more valid than mine and should have no influence on governance. However, he wants his government to institutionalize his morality, which is incredibly disturbing. I would not vote for him, as his grasp of liberty and limited government is infantile.

Get government out of the bedroom and out of marriage.

 

[AxisMundi]

And you have proof of that?

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

 

[AxisMundi]

He would? What rights would he deny them?

Marriage s a Civil Right, and there is no valid reason to deny a couple that Civil Right merely because they are of the same gender.

 

[erowe1]

Marriage s a Civil Right, and there is no valid reason to deny a couple that Civil Right merely because they are of the same gender.

Please define what this civil right of marriage includes, and explain what part of it would be denied by a law that Paladino supports.

Would he outlaw gay wedding ceremonies? Gay cohabitation? Gay sex?

What part of marriage, as you define it, would gay people be punished for doing?

 

[erowe1]

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

You just posted something that supports TraditionalConservative's position.

The old born gay myth is so debunked that not even the APA believes it any more.

 

[erowe1]

However, he wants his government to institutionalize his morality

How so?

It appears to me that the situation is more one of proponents of homosexuality wanting government to institutionalize their morality (or lack thereof), and Paladino is opposed to that.

 

[BamaAla]

Please define what this civil right of marriage includes, and explain what part of it would be denied by a law that Paladino supports.

Would he outlaw gay wedding ceremonies? Gay cohabitation? Gay sex?

What part of marriage, as you define it, would gay people be punished for doing?

You continue to argue this point because it suits you; meanwhile, you ignore the simple fact that one section of society is denied privileges based entirely on sexual preference. You keep talking about punishment as if without punishment injury is absent. That simply isn't the case. In the same way that my state refused to grant interracial marriages, he is advocating the denial of gay marriages.

How do you reconcile your position of not granting marriages to gays with due process, equal protection under the law, and your liberty stance?

 

[MikeStanart]

Political Suicide.

 

[erowe1]

You continue to argue this point because it suits you; meanwhile, you ignore the simple fact that one section of society is denied privileges based entirely on sexual preference. You keep talking about punishment as if without punishment injury is absent. That simply isn't the case. In the same way that my state refused to grant interracial marriages, he is advocating the denial of gay marriages.

How do you reconcile your position of not granting marriages to gays with due process, equal protection under the law, and your liberty stance?

I'm not ignoring that, because it's not true.

The basis on which one section of society is treated differently than another in current law is not sexuality, but marriage, where marriage is defined as a man and a woman entering a licensed marriage with the state.

All those who meet that definition (regardless of their sexuality) are treated by the state as married. All those who do not (regardless of their sexuality) are treated as unmarried.

Under your proposed change in legal definition of the word "marriage", there would still be two groups being treated differently, the married and the unmarried. The only change would be where the boundary lines are drawn, so that there would be more people in the married group and fewer people in the unmarried group. You are proposing expanding government marriages, not decreasing them, and without any lessening of the inequalities that separate the married from the unmarried.

As to your last question. I'm not sure what due process has to do with it. I'm not interested in the abstract platitude of "equal protection under the law" (which would exist no more after "marriage" is redefined than it does now). But as for a "liberty stance," my position of decreasing government involvement in marriage and opposing all increases in it, is the liberty stance.

And that (that my position is the liberty position) is precisely why I have kept repeating the argument you quoted above, an argument which has so far gon unanswered, which is that the frequent reference to various laws defining marriage as one man and one woman as "gay marriage bans" is a misnomer, because they don't ban anything, nor limit anyone's freedoms in any way.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Why can't these social conservatives just focus on consensus-building limited government platforms instead of shaping their public policy around their personal religious and moral beliefs?

Honestly, Why should I care what Paladino thinks about homosexuality? His personal views are no more valid than mine and should have no influence on governance. However, he wants his government to institutionalize his morality, which is incredibly disturbing. I would not vote for him, as his grasp of liberty and limited government is infantile.

Get government out of the bedroom and out of marriage.

Then let's do it both ways. Paladino's purposes may be suspect or self-serving, but he speaks to the public that objects to the social left imposing messages to accept sexual immorality to students in the schools. To be consistent, one should find that to be "incredibly disturbing" too.

 

[osan]

I wish these tea party candidates would STFU about gays, abortion, and religion and focus on liberty, repealing the PATRIOT Act, Warner Defense, abolishing the IRS and the Fed, ect. They'll drive away independents who don't want govt in their personal lives.

No shit.

 

[BamaAla]

I'm not ignoring that, because it's not true.

Group a is allowed certain privileges : Group b is denied those same privileges without due process. It is indeed true.

The basis on which one section of society is treated differently than another in current law is not sexuality, but marriage, where marriage is defined as a man and a woman entering a licensed marriage with the state.

You are okay with government limiting the scope of future contracts between private parties, but are wholly cross with equality of marriage. I have a hard time believing that "is the liberty position."

All those who meet that definition (regardless of their sexuality) are treated by the state as married. All those who do not (regardless of their sexuality) are treated as unmarried.

You're right. That is the principle reason court after court has knocked down such definitions. If the issue ever reaches the high court, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed.

Under your proposed change in legal definition of the word "marriage", there would still be two groups being treated differently, the married and the unmarried. The only change would be where the boundary lines are drawn, so that there would be more people in the married group and fewer people in the unmarried group. You are proposing expanding government marriages, not decreasing them, and without any lessening of the inequalities that separate the married from the unmarried.

I'm in now way proposing the expansion of government marriage; I am, however, advocating for equality within the existing frame-work. I've said earlier in this thread that the government should not be involved with marriage at all, unfortunately though, they are; therefore, it is essential that everyone is treated equally without religious or moral bias.

As to your last question. I'm not sure what due process has to do with it. I'm not interested in the abstract platitude of "equal protection under the law" (which would exist no more after "marriage" is redefined than it does now). But as for a "liberty stance," my position of decreasing government involvement in marriage and opposing all increases in it, is the liberty stance.

You really don't see how due process is involved? That abstract platitude is maybe not so much: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[osan]

Homosexuals are born that way, and they shouldn't be ashamed for who they are.

That is not quite true anymore. Homosexuals are now being manufactured, largely by what they are taught in schools. Tolerance is one thing, but advocating is something very different. If I thought someone was turning my otherwise "normal" child into a homosexual, they would have to deal with me on a most personal level in ways they would not welcome. If a kid turns out to be queer, well then that is the way the ball bounces sometimes. But to take an otherwise heterosexually oriented child and turn him is an act of pure evil, just as it is to attempt to force a very obviously gay child to be something he is not.

To say you have a problem with homosexuality being taught in school is one thing, to say you have a problem with a gay pride parade, and homosexuals in general is totally something different.

I agree about the schools. They have no business teaching students about any such things - another excellent reason to remove one's children from public schools.

As for the parades - that is something of a mixed bag. I've been to several of them in Manhattan and while most of the participants comport themselves reasonably, those boys from Queer Nation should be run out of town on a rail because they are just as obnoxious as it gets. I once had to inform one of their members that I would introduce him to body parts they didn't know he had if he insisted on trying to hump my leg. He made some snide remark and floated away, but I was ready to cause him some real damage if he had violated my space in the fashion he clearly intended. Yet, had I acted to defend my space, I would have been painted as the aggressor. That is the brand of nonsense to which I strenuously object - the flight from reason in favor of a double standard intended to appease yet another "victim" group while masquerading as "equality" and so-called "social justice".

 

[erowe1]

Group a is allowed certain privileges : Group b is denied those same privileges without due process. It is indeed true.

No matter how you redefine marriage, groups A and B (the married and the unmarried) will still be treated differently.

You are okay with government limiting the scope of future contracts between private parties,

No. State marriage licenses are not "contracts between private parties," hence the name.

You're right. That is the principle reason court after court has knocked down such definitions. If the issue ever reaches the high court, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed.

You are probably aware that decreasing the power of the government is not normally part of the agenda of the government's courts. Their opinion on this only further illustrates their illegitimacy.

I'm in now way proposing the expansion of government marriage;

If you propose expanding the size of the group that gets marriage licenses to include gay couples, then you are.

I am, however, advocating for equality within the existing frame-work.

No, you're not. You're only for keeping the inequality but changing the boundaries of the two unequal groups (the married and the unmarried).

I've said earlier in this thread that the government should not be involved with marriage at all, unfortunately though, they are; therefore, it is essential that everyone is treated equally without religious or moral bias.

If you're against government involvement in marriage, then the direction you should want to take things is to get the government less involved in it, rather than more involved in it by expanding the size of the group of people receiving state marriage licenses. And again, expanding that group will do nothing to alter the situation of inequality that exists now and will still exist between the married and the unmarried.

You really don't see how due process is involved?

No.

That abstract platitude is maybe not so much: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So you're also a fan of the 14th Amendment. No surprise there, I suppose. It's still an abstract platitude. I wonder how much government power came about in response to somebody squealing, "But it's not fair."

 

[MelissaWV]

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.

Did you read my post at all? The "Marriage is between a man and a woman" folks cite history, but then don't go back very far. Marriage is also often between relatives, or between one man and multiple women, or even a woman and multiple men. Marriage is between an adult and child(ren), or between a pair of children. Marriage was not religious in nature for a large portion of history, except that it was the "highest authority" before which such a pledge of fealty could be undertaken. Marriage is a religious rite to Christians, sure. Why do you need a slip of paper from the state to confirm that?

 

[lester1/2jr]

This seems like a weird position to take in New York.

 

[paulitics]

That is not quite true anymore. Homosexuals are now being manufactured, largely by what they are taught in schools. Tolerance is one thing, but advocating is something very different. If I thought someone was turning my otherwise "normal" child into a homosexual, they would have to deal with me on a most personal level in ways they would not welcome. If a kid turns out to be queer, well then that is the way the ball bounces sometimes. But to take an otherwise heterosexually oriented child and turn him is an act of pure evil, just as it is to attempt to force a very obviously gay child to be something he is not.



I agree about the schools. They have no business teaching students about any such things - another excellent reason to remove one's children from public schools.

As for the parades - that is something of a mixed bag. I've been to several of them in Manhattan and while most of the participants comport themselves reasonably, those boys from Queer Nation should be run out of town on a rail because they are just as obnoxious as it gets. I once had to inform one of their members that I would introduce him to body parts they didn't know he had if he insisted on trying to hump my leg. He made some snide remark and floated away, but I was ready to cause him some real damage if he had violated my space in the fashion he clearly intended. Yet, had I acted to defend my space, I would have been painted as the aggressor. That is the brand of nonsense to which I strenuously object - the flight from reason in favor of a double standard intended to appease yet another "victim" group while masquerading as "equality" and so-called "social justice".

I don't think that it is possible to make someone "queer". I suppose you can be bisexual, and then be persuaded to be gay if it is perceived to be cooler than heteoro, but that is about the extent of it. I don't doubt most people have some bisexual tendancies, but to just hardwire someone into being full on gay, is just hard to believe.

But I do agree with you about the schools. Sex education should never be introduced, and I find it repugnant that 8 year olds are now being taught about sex. I think every child should have a chance to live their childhood, without the bombardment of sex and violence, which will only corrupt their minds before they have learned self responsibility. If a child is being taught about sex from a stranger, and they are say less than 12, then it borders on pedophilia.

I also agree with you about some of the gay pride parades, and that they are too flamboyant, or obnoxious, etc. It hurts their cause.


So, in the end we agree, except that I don't think one can be taught to be aroused at the sight of a hairy butt if they are a straight male. I think biology kicks in to prevent that. Just saying.

 

[Agorism]

I love making fun of Paladino since he reminds me of Guiliani. I think New Yorker is generally incapable of coming of selecting a reasonable candidate no matter what.

Paladino is coming across as so shallow that he has little if any chance of being elected despite a decent environment for R's even in NY this year.