Ron Paul Condems Obama’s Decision to Abandon DOMA

[Echoes]

I agree with the sentiment but I do not agree with Ron Paul when he says:

"Marriage is between one man and one woman."

Says who? Says Ron Paul and a bunch of bureacrats? I fail to see how this is getting government out of our lives.

And who is to say otherwise ? Says you ? I suppose everyone has an opinion and Thats how he defines it, he's never said he wants to impose his definition on others.

 

[Brett85]

I agree with the sentiment but I do not agree with Ron Paul when he says:

"Marriage is between one man and one woman."

Says who? Says Ron Paul and a bunch of bureacrats? I fail to see how this is getting government out of our lives.

Says our society over the past 200 years.

 

[low preference guy]

Says our society over the past 200 years.

says society? lol. what a great argument.

 

[sailingaway]

Interesting how some seem to want to write off Libertarians. Is there a move to purge libertarians from the Ron Paul movement?

A lot of us are Libertarians because the Republican party didn't want us around.

http://flagliberty.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/welcome-to-the-libertarian-party-jim-deakin/

No purge. Different people here have different opinions and we are all pretty up front with them. It's a pretty free market of ideas here.

One thread here that is pretty common is people who call themselves libertarians saying no one else here is pure enough. I haven't seen you here doing it, but some people have run into that quite a bit, and you got the blowback. Sorry. We all support Ron.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I agree with the sentiment but I do not agree with Ron Paul when he says:

"Marriage is between one man and one woman."

Says who? Says Ron Paul and a bunch of bureacrats? I fail to see how this is getting government out of our lives.

Says who?

Says nature and natures God.

If you want to have gay associations, polygamist associations, or associations with animals, fine. But that is not "marriage".

The government does not need to define marriage. God has already done so.

It reveals a statist inclination in people when they want government endorsement of gay marriage. Why instead wouldn't they be arguing for no endorsement?

Let's work to limit government in our lives, not expand it.

 

[Zap!]

Says who?

Says nature and natures God.

If you want to have gay associations, polygamist associations, or associations with animals, fine. But that is not "marriage".

The government does not need to define marriage. God has already done so.

It reveals a statist inclination in people when they want government endorsement of gay marriage. Why instead wouldn't they be arguing for no endorsement?

Let's work to limit government in our lives, not expand it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. In the 40's, 50's, and beyond, homosexuality was considered a disease. Something wrong in the brain to be attracted to the same sex. Then MTV corrupted and entire generation into thinking it is just another normal lifestyle. In reality they have hurt them, and should instead be searching for a cure.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Couldn't have said it better myself. In the 40's, 50's, and beyond, homosexuality was considered a disease. Something wrong in the brain to be attracted to the same sex. Then MTV corrupted and entire generation into thinking it is just another normal lifestyle. In reality they have hurt them, and should instead be searching for a cure.

In the 1800's and beyond, black people were considered a lower species, incapable of complex thought. A smaller brain that prevented negroes from achieving the civilization of white people. Then our enemies corrupted entire generations into thinking it is just another regular race of people. In reality, they have hurt them, and should instead be searching for real solution.

 

[Dorfsmith]

I think this is a case where libertarianism separates from Constitutionalism. Whatever, Ron isn't perfect, I still support him because he is better than any other politician out there.

Agreed. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Brett85]

In the 1800's and beyond, black people were considered a lower species, incapable of complex thought. A smaller brain that prevented negroes from achieving the civilization of white people. Then our enemies corrupted entire generations into thinking it is just another regular race of people. In reality, they have hurt them, and should instead be searching for real solution.

If you can provide scientific evidence that people are actually born gay then you'll actually have a point. Until then, it's simply a ridiculous comparison. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a genetic trait.

 

[ChaosControl]

I agree with the sentiment but I do not agree with Ron Paul when he says:

"Marriage is between one man and one woman."

Says who? Says Ron Paul and a bunch of bureacrats? I fail to see how this is getting government out of our lives.

One could say that and it be their personal value, but still not want government involved in marriage.
Personally I very much agree with Ron Paul on that, I'd never consider any other "union" to be a valid marriage, regardless what some law says. The law is irrelevant.

 

[specsaregood]

If you can provide scientific evidence that people are actually born gay then you'll actually have a point. Until then, it's simply a ridiculous comparison. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a genetic trait.

So what you re saying is that you could choose to be gay? interesting, i don't think I could as I'm not attracted to other men.

 

[erowe1]

So what you re saying is that you could choose to be gay? interesting, i don't think I could as I'm not attracted to other men.

You don't actually think that the only options are either that you are born gay or that you choose to be gay, do you?

The funny thing is, I've encountered this same ridiculous line I don't know how many times. There must be some website out there on rhetorical tricks you can use to win arguments against people who oppose gay marriage that tells people to say that or something, because there's just no way that so many people would independently come up with that line and think it actually makes sense.

 

[Brett85]

So what you re saying is that you could choose to be gay? interesting, i don't think I could as I'm not attracted to other men.

I never said that at all. I just said that there's no proof that it's a genetic trait. I think it's most likely a trait that people develop as a result of their upbringing. Can you point out to me some 3 year olds who are gay?

 

[devil21]

............still waiting for a source from the Paul camp..............

 

[specsaregood]

You don't actually think that the only options are either that you are born gay or that you choose to be gay, do you?

So being gay isn't a choice? What other option is there?

The funny thing is, I've encountered this same ridiculous line I don't know how many times. There must be some website out there on rhetorical tricks you can use to win arguments against people who oppose gay marriage that tells people to say that or something, because there's just no way that so many people would independently come up with that line and think it actually makes sense.

I actually heard it from dannno here. I found it rather amusing so I decided to use it.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Similarly, I think that people who want to expand federal marriage benefits to gay couples should stop pretending that their position on that has anything at all to do with being libertarians. They might have good reasons for their view (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument they might). But whatever those reasons are, there's nothing libertarian about them.

The only thing behind libertarians being for expanding marriage benefits to gay couples is equality under the law. If the government is going to be involved in marriage (as it currently is), it needs to treat everybody as the same. That is a consistent libertarian position.

Of course, the pure position is that no special marriage benefits would exist, and the government would merely uphold contracts between consenting adults in the fields of visitation rights, living wills, SS, Medicare (in so far as they exist), etc.

 

[specsaregood]

I never said that at all. I just said that there's no proof that it's a genetic trait. I think it's most likely a trait that people develop as a result of their upbringing. Can you point out to me some 3 year olds who are gay?

Interesting how you avoided the question, I'll take that as Yes I suppose.
Are 3 your olds aware of their sexual preferences? Is that part of their brain or hormones developed/active so they would even know?

 

[low preference guy]

You don't actually think that the only options are either that you are born gay or that you choose to be gay, do you?

The funny thing is, I've encountered this same ridiculous line I don't know how many times. There must be some website out there on rhetorical tricks you can use to win arguments against people who oppose gay marriage that tells people to say that or something, because there's just no way that so many people would independently come up with that line and think it actually makes sense.

why doesn't it make sense? i think it makes perfect sense. and i'm not even an advocate of gay marriage. the line is about whether being attracted to someone of the same sex is something one chooses.

 

[erowe1]

So being gay isn't a choice? What other option is there?

It could be how someone was raised. It could be a combination of factors. It could be that previous choices led to impulses that are no longer a choice. It could be lots of things. The same could be said about all aspects of human behavior. But for some reason, homosexuality seems to be the only one I ever encounter that people insist on there being only two clear alternative explanations like that.

 

[Fredom101]

And who is to say otherwise ? Says you ? I suppose everyone has an opinion and Thats how he defines it, he's never said he wants to impose his definition on others.

Yes, I should be able to make decisions for my own life, so I should have the final say on what I kind of contracts on what I want to engage in. Do you disagree?