Rand Paul on gay marriage

stupid rand paul. Ron Paul was right , the government has no business or authority granting licenses for marriage.

This is a libertarian belief. In a constitutional government things work differently.

Just because all libertarians care about is their economic protection and only make moral judgements along those lines doesn't mean passing laws in other spheres is immoral or tyrannical, no matter how much libertarians would like to believe that.
 
I wish your God would shit or get off the pot, already.

Yea. Message to God. We're getting our asses kicked down here on this blue sphere. Now would be a good time to go OT on these f@#kers. Hell, I'd take a few toads from the sky at this point. Gimme anything.
 
Last edited:
Almost nobody wants to actually teach what the Bible does on this issue. But, this is a textbook example of how public acceptance of homosexuality leads to bigger government. Its inevitable because every single homosexual knows their behavior is perverted and unnatural.

Leave perverted out for a second. That's your own personal bias. But it is unnatural. So is Downs Syndrome.
 
Last edited:
Yea. Message to God. We're getting our asses kicked down here on this blue sphere. Now would be a good time to go OT on these f@#kers. Hell, I'd take a few toads from the sky at this point. Gimme anything.

There will be vengeance and it will be swift. Luke 18:8, Luke 20:16

Don't get the wrong idea though. If you are alive when it all starts you will suffer a lot. Vengeance is only part of it. The plagues and tribulation will be on all flesh.
 
stupid rand paul. Ron Paul was right , the government has no business or authority granting licenses for marriage.

WHAT?!! That is the same position Ron Paul holds and is the correct libertarian position. The ability for individuals to make contracts is fundamental to a free society and enforcing contracts is one the core legitimate purposes of government.
 
That said, I am COMPLETELY against gay marriage or any form of union that puts in on the same level as one man one woman marriage. I am against it being an accepted standard of society not because of my "stance on gays" or homosexuality. I'm not offended or disgusted by gays getting married. My stance on gay marriage comes from my stance on biblical marriage not as a reaction to perceived attempts by the gay community to "sabotage" it.

So all this crap that supposed Christians like Rand are saying about, "Well it offends me that you CALL it marriage but I would like to remove the government red tape that puts a traditional marriage above a gay union." Saying this is saying that you don't care about the standard of marriage in society you just don't want "your" marriage to be grouped in with "their" marriage. It is the disintegration of the societal standard that God cares about not "yours" or "their" individual marriage. God isn't going to come down from heaven and strike down gay couples and bless Rand's on account of the "sanctity" of his marriage. He is going to judge those who destroyed the standard.

For a Christian not to understand how important marriage is to God shows me that they aren't very Christian. I've said it time and time again the entire salvation story, the entire gospel of Christ, and Christ's revelation is told primarily through the allegory of marriage. Another thing I've said time and time again is that GOD JUDGES NATIONS too. Read your bible, I'm not making it up. The spiritual/final "judgement" is for the individual, but a temporal judgement is often agnostic to the individual. God might kill a whole family and curse the grandchildren just for what the head of the household did. Tsunami's and natural disasters are the same way, they are impersonal.

I may seem to be implying that "gay marriage will bring a judgement" but that's not what I'm saying (I will get to that in a minute). What I'm trying to point out is that their are "community" things that God cares about marriage being primary. Being political and saying, "I'm offended. That's not real marriage. Mine is. As long as that's understood proceed. My hands are clean." It is the breakdown of the societal standard that is offensive to God not your personal condoning or rejecting of the "idea". All most so-called Christians do is claim offense at the idea, they do nothing to protect the standard.

As far as an impersonal or national "judgement" I don't think gay marriage will "bring" the judgement I think gay marriage acceptance BY SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS is a sign of the coming judgement. This country has a hell of a lot more issues both now and historically than gays getting married but I believe that to God gay marriage (or rather the societal destruction of real marriage from whatever source) is the final straw. It is the final breakdown becuase to God marriage is the core foundation of society. The last vestige of civil society is gone in God's eyes and now we're nothing but a nation of sinners in open rebellion against God.

You could use the exact same argument to outlaw porn or adultery. The government officially recognizes giant businesses which profit from both of these things. They are no more Biblically moral than homosexuality is, and God will judge the nation for the destruction of the moral standard.
 
As far as an impersonal or national "judgement" I don't think gay marriage will "bring" the judgement I think gay marriage acceptance BY SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS is a sign of the coming judgement. This country has a hell of a lot more issues both now and historically than gays getting married but I believe that to God gay marriage (or rather the societal destruction of real marriage from whatever source) is the final straw. It is the final breakdown becuase to God marriage is the core foundation of society. The last vestige of civil society is gone in God's eyes and now we're nothing but a nation of sinners in open rebellion against God.

Oh bullshit. I've tried to respectfully disagree, but if you think taking a "live and let live, not my place to judge" attitude is what pisses God off, you haven't been paying much attention to what the real evil people are doing, that surely disgust him a thousand times more. If that doesn't break the camel's back, this straw isn't.

Use his name to wage endless wars, corrupt, power and control, ruin billions of people's entire existence and lives, sure, he can handle that, but don't you dare not judge two well-meaning people for somehow being attracted to the same sex and wanting to show their commitment. That's comparing apples to holocaust.

Not that I don't think homosexuality is unnatural, but I do know a lot of gay people who, aside from that sin are great, great people. I would trust them with my life over the vast majority of people who conduct sins that actually hurt people physically, mentally, financially, etc, and in big ways.

To think that God is more concerned with something that doesn't actually harm anyone outside of those two people, over the countless travesties that have affected billions of people over millenias, to the point that this is the straw that breaks the camel's back, you are doing nothing but making your primary agenda God's agenda.

At least i hope so. I'd give up being spiritual altogether if it meant that my God cared more about what sins people conduct innocently, compared to the ones where they show a clear evil, or further a psychopathic intent in the name of greed.

Leave it up to God to judge, because there is plenty of scripture to support that he doesn't want you judging and making laws that try to dictate what other people do amongst themselves, particularly when it isn't going to change anything for the positive by taking on that issue.
 
Last edited:
Oh bullshit. I've tried to respectfully disagree, but if you think taking a "live and let live, not my place to judge" attitude is what pisses God off, you haven't been paying much attention to what the real evil people are doing, that surely disgust him a thousand times more. If that doesn't break the camel's back, this straw isn't.

Use his name to wage endless wars, corrupt, power and control, ruin billions of people's entire existence and lives, sure, he can handle that, but don't you dare not judge two well-meaning people for somehow being attracted to the same sex and wanting to show their commitment. That's comparing apples to holocaust.

Not that I don't think homosexuality is unnatural, but I do know a lot of gay people who, aside from that sin are great, great people. I would trust them with my life over the vast majority of people who conduct sins that actually hurt people physically, mentally, financially, etc, and in big ways.

To think that God is more concerned with something that doesn't actually harm anyone outside of those two people, over the countless travesties that have affected billions of people over millenias, to the point that this is the straw that breaks the camel's back, you are doing nothing but making your primary agenda God's agenda.

At least i hope so. I'd give up being spiritual altogether if it meant that my God cared more about what sins people conduct innocently, compared to the ones where they show a clear evil, or further a psychopathic intent in the name of greed.

Leave it up to God to judge, because there is plenty of scripture to support that he doesn't want you judging and making laws that try to dictate what other people do amongst themselves, particularly when it isn't going to change anything for the positive by taking on that issue.

You didn't understand a damn word I said.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GAYS.

IT HAS TO DO WITH CHRISTIANS ALLOWING THE STANDARD TO DISINTEGRATE.

But please keep telling me how my God is a homophobe and how I love him for it.
 
You could use the exact same argument to outlaw porn or adultery. The government officially recognizes giant businesses which profit from both of these things. They are no more Biblically moral than homosexuality is, and God will judge the nation for the destruction of the moral standard.

That's correct. And all I've said is that while humans think destruction of marriage is small potatos, God doesn't.

People like TheGrinch keep misinterpreting my argument as:

Wizardwatson says God considers the destruction of marriage as a crime worthy of a nations destruction, therefore, God hates gays more than murderers.

You people need to read WHAT I'M SAYING instead of skimming over it waiting to make your preconceived point, which I've clearly refuted in the text.

The moral standard has been crushed and with marriage gone what is left?
 
Last edited:
That's correct. And all I've said is that while humans think destruction of marriage is small potatos, God doesn't.

People like TheGrinch keep misinterpreting my argument as:

Wizardwatson says God considers the destruction of marriage as a crime worthy of a nations destruction, therefore, God hates gays more than murderers.

You people need to read WHAT I'M SAYING instead of skimming over it waiting to make your preconceived point, which I've clearly refuted in the text.

The moral standard has been crushed and with marriage gone what is left?

What is left is what we already have. As if the heterosexual marriage standard is not already crushed with porn, infidelity and divorces. All I am saying is that for your position to be consistent, you should also be for a government prohibition on businesses like ashleymadison.com, adultfriendfinder, or the rest of the multi-billion-dollar adult entertainment industry. Are people's hearts really going to be changed and the moral standard restored by government laws that restrict individual freedom? If God is real then he would be able to see right through that and judge the nation anyway.
 
stupid rand paul. Ron Paul was right , the government has no business or authority granting licenses for marriage.

That's Rand's position. I'm not going to call you "stupid" but I don't see why you didn't get that from what he said. Personal offense at calling gay marriage, marriage is not the same as saying the government should be involved in marriage. I see a lot of bumper stickers that offend me. That doesn't mean I want the government to regulate bumper stickers.
 
You could use the exact same argument to outlaw porn or adultery. The government officially recognizes giant businesses which profit from both of these things. They are no more Biblically moral than homosexuality is, and God will judge the nation for the destruction of the moral standard.

Adultery should absolutely be criminal.
 
Rand Paul votes NAY on ensuring equal federal benefits to gay couples

[TABLE="class: contenttext, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]Amendment Number: [/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]S.Amdt. 1063 to S.Con.Res. 11 (No short title on file)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Statement of Purpose:[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to ensuring all legally married same-sex spouses have equal access to the Social Security and veterans benefits they have earned and receive equal treatment under the law pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Vote Counts: YEAs57NAYs43
Paul (R-KY), Nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00121


The measure backs equal treatment for "legally married same-sex spouses," giving them access to Social Security and VA benefits no matter what state that they live in.

"All legally married same-sex couples deserve equal treatment under the law regardless of where they live, but right now eligibility for spousal benefits provided under the Social Security Act and by the Department of Veterans Administration is determined by a residence standard," Schatz said. "That means that legally married same-sex couples who move to a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage could be denied Social Security and veterans' survivor benefits."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ial-security-va-benefits-for-same-sex-couples

March 26, 2015
It was one of the toughest votes of the night for Republicans.


The amendment—which hit the floor more than 10 hours into the Senate's budget vote-a-rama—allows same-sex spouses to be eligible for the same Veteran's Affairs benefits and Social Security benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.


Huddled together, poring over language authored by Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz, potential 2016 presidential candidates and senators facing reelection next cycle walked away from an amendment clearly divided on gay marriage—a marker of how the party's evangelical wing and more moderate branch are still in conflict over the issue.


It wasn't the first time during Friday's marathon that the party's presidential candidates voted one way and its vulnerable senators up for reelection in swing states voted the other, as they court two decidedly different audiences.


Republican Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—all up for reelection in 2016—voted yes on the amendment. Kirk, Portman, and Murkowski had already publicly come out in support of gay marriage. Still other surprising yes votes included Republican Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.


The amendment pit two Republican priorities against one another. Senators were forced to choose between veterans' benefits and social conservatism, leading some to wait until the bitter end to vote. At one point, Corker led the discussion around the table before the vote and at another point, Schatz moseyed over to make one more pitch to the GOP. Some were still unmoved.


After waiting until the very end, Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who faces reelection in 2016, voted no. He stood with all of the potential 2016 candidates: Sens. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Lindsey Graham.


The amendment passed 57-to-43.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...splits-on-same-sex-marriage-benefits-20150326
 
Last edited:
[TABLE="class: contenttext, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]Amendment Number: [/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]S.Amdt. 1063 to S.Con.Res. 11 (No short title on file)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Statement of Purpose:[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to ensuring all legally married same-sex spouses have equal access to the Social Security and veterans benefits they have earned and receive equal treatment under the law pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Vote Counts: YEAs57NAYs43
Paul (R-KY), Nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00121

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ial-security-va-benefits-for-same-sex-couples

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...splits-on-same-sex-marriage-benefits-20150326

I strongly disagree but it doesn't bother me that Rand voted that way. Can't really expect anything else
 
I strongly disagree...

Are you sure? You don't know what Schatz really put in that amendment, you only know what his sales pitch was.

The reason I know that you don't know what was hidden in that amendment is that I have just been to congress.gov, senate.gov, c-span, govtrack and Capitol Words, and no one is willing to tell We, the People the actual text of the thing.

They're usually quite happy to tell us what's in bills that We, the People might actually have reason to like.
 
Are you sure? You don't know what Schatz really put in that amendment, you only know what his sales pitch was.

The reason I know that you don't know what was hidden in that amendment is that I have just been to congress.gov, senate.gov, c-span, govtrack and Capitol Words, and no one is willing to tell We, the People the actual text of the thing.

They're usually quite happy to tell us what's in bills that We, the People might actually have reason to like.

Point well taken.
 
I strongly disagree but it doesn't bother me that Rand voted that way. Can't really expect anything else

Anybody who wanted to get the federal government further out of marriage would have voted no. Rand should propose his own amendment that calls for a revenue neutral way to assign veterans and social security benefits to some other person regardless of marital status. And, of course, neither proposal would actually be revenue neutral.
 
Back
Top