Ron Paul Condems Obama’s Decision to Abandon DOMA

[Zap!]

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.

You're comparing a race to men who think "Eww" when they see a hot naked girl, yet see another man's genitals and say "Yup, that's for me!"? That's an insult to black people everywhere.

 

[erowe1]

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.

It doesn't make sense because the alternative explanations of choosing it or being born that way don't exhaust the possibilities. It's a false dilemma.

 

[ronpaulitician]

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.

Exactly. You will not and cannot find a representative that agrees with you 100% of the time. The only such candidate is oneself.

What I like about Paul is that he at least tries to apply his beliefs consistently. That, of course, isn't always possible, because there simply are issues that are not as black-and-white as we'd like them to be. But I feel like I can predict what he will say about an issue, and can also look back and see that he's voted a specific way about certain issues. A consistent way. He doesn't really pander. He's not afraid to speak his mind, even if he knows that in doing so he will inevitably get misinterpreted, slandered, and made fun of.

 

[low preference guy]

It doesn't make sense because the alternative explanations of choosing it or being born that way don't exhaust the possibilities. It's a false dilemma.

so what are all the possibilities? choosing, being born with the sexual inclination, or a combination? are there any other possibilities?

ETA: never mind - i found your answer in the previous page.

 

[specsaregood]

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.

While what you say is theoretically possible, I'd think that with all the angst over the years on this issue; if the cause was an external stimuli it would have been discovered by now.

 

[erowe1]

While what you say is theoretically possible, I'd think that with all the angst over the years on this issue; if the cause was an external stimuli it would have been discovered by now.

Plenty of external factors that correspond to the likelihood of a person turning out gay have been discovered and documented.

 

[Brett85]

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?

I didn't avoid the question. I think that gays are attracted to members of their own sex, and it's not simply a choice they make. But the point I made is that it's more likely a result of their upbringing and life experiences then something that they were actually born with. Scientists have looked for some kind of evidence that there's some kind of "gay gene," and so far they haven't had any luck.

 

[erowe1]

so what are all the possibilities? choosing, being born with the sexual inclination, or a combination? are there any other possibilities?

ETA: never mind - i found your answer in the previous page.

Like I said above, it could be nurture, it could be previous choices, it could be a combination of genetics and nurture and choices. It could be lots of things.

Imagine if the same argument were used about pedophiles. I'm not attracted to children. I find the idea repulsive, and I couldn't simply choose to be attracted to children. And people who are attracted to children can't simply choose to stop having that attraction. But that doesn't mean that they were born with it. It probably is the case that different people are born with different genetic dispositions that make them more or less susceptible to become like that. And it probably is the case that different environmental factors also make it more or less likely that people will become like that, and it probably is the case that different choices they make at a point when there's still a possibility for them not to go that way make those impulses grow and become less controllable, until they feel like it's not a choice any more. And once that has happened, it may or may not be the case that it's still possible for them to be cured of that. But it's ridiculous to present the dilemma as: either they were born with an attraction to children or else it must be the case that you and I can simply choose whether or not to be attracted to children at any moment. The same has to be true of homosexuality.

The alternative is such a gross oversimplification of how human beings behave that it just shocks me every time I encounter people on either side of the issue who genuinely think like that. Are there other behaviors that you can simply boil down to those two alternatives. Or is homosexuality the only one?

Edit: If you think I'm just spouting off some kind of homophobic bigotry, here's what the American Psychological Association says about it:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

 

[ronpaulitician]

I believe that evolution initially instilled in all of us an instinct to procreate with the opposite sex, but I also believe that with our intellect came the realization that if we're not having sex to procreate, it doesn't really matter who or what the object of our affection is, and that our sexual instincts are continually evolving, possibly moving further and further away from the procreate aspect. Any voluntary sex that is not done with the intent to procreate (in other words, every time I've had sex) is done for pleasure. To each their own, and I frankly don't care why someone is attracted to someone with brown eyes, blond hair, small feet, etc.

What I do care about is that those the government doesn't try to impose certain forms of attraction and/or beliefs above others.

 

[low preference guy]

Are there other behaviors that you can simply down to those two alternatives. Or is homosexuality the only one?

i think most behavior is either chosen or not chosen. let's say, being a statist. that's something one choses. no matter what your influences are, once you grow up you can think for yourself.

nevertheless, i think the issue of whether being gay is chosen or not isn't that relevant. i still don't see the point of the government being involved in marriages or unions, no matter what the cause of sexual orientation is.

 

[erowe1]

i think most behavior is either chosen or not chosen. let's say, being a statist. that's something one choses. no matter what your influences are, once you grow up you can think for yourself.

nevertheless, i think the issue of whether being gay is chosen or not isn't that relevant. i still don't see the point of the government being involved in marriages or unions, no matter what the cause of sexual orientation is.

I think every choice we make is 100% predetermined, but not necessarily by our genetics.

But I agree with your second paragraph. It really doesn't matter if gay people are genetically hardwired to be gay. That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not there's anything right or wrong with homosexuality nor of whether the government has any business being involved in gay marriages or any other marriages.

 

[Brett85]

I believe that evolution initially instilled in all of us an instinct to procreate with the opposite sex, but I also believe that with our intellect came the realization that if we're not having sex to procreate, it doesn't really matter who or what the object of our affection is, and that our sexual instincts are continually evolving, possibly moving further and further away from the procreate aspect. Any voluntary sex that is not done with the intent to procreate (in other words, every time I've had sex) is done for pleasure. To each their own, and I frankly don't care why someone is attracted to someone with brown eyes, blond hair, small feet, etc.

What I do care about is that those the government doesn't try to impose certain forms of attraction and/or beliefs above others.

I don't care what gays do in the privacy of their own home. I think they should be free to live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live, as I don't think the government can legislate morality. I even supported repealing "don't ask don't tell." But I simply don't want my tax dollars going to subsidize gay relationships, which is what will happen if the Defense of Marriage Act is not enforced.

 

[Orgoonian]

I don't want my tax dollars to subsidize ANY relationship.

 

[Michigan Robin]

Maybe this will play well in Iowa but I doubt it will do Ron much good with his younger more libertarian/small gov supporters. I'm also unsure as to how much play this press release will actually gain in the media - so far all it has managed to do is get the forums buzzing.

Personally I feel strongly that all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another. The part of DOMA that denies federal marriage benefits to same-sex married couples who live and are married in a state that legally allows same-sex marriage seems a bit off. Even looking at DOMA through the prism of state rights it doesn't appear to treat the decisions of individual states equally. I mean from a technical standpoint every state in the union could theoretically allow gay marriage and the feds would still deny federal marriage rights to same-sex couples. Now that doesn't sound right.

 

[Aldanga]

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

Murray Rothbard himself gave up on the Libertarian Party, if that says anything.

Like previously said, many, if not most, here consider themselves libertarians of one stripe or another.

 

[ronpaulitician]

I don't care what gays do in the privacy of their own home. I think they should be free to live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live, as I don't think the government can legislate morality. I even supported repealing "don't ask don't tell." But I simply don't want my tax dollars going to subsidize gay relationships, which is what will happen if the Defense of Marriage Act is not enforced.

If the government subsidizes ANY relationships between consenting adults, it would be discrimination if it didn't subsidize ALL relationships between consenting adults. Period.

And, if it HAD to discriminate in who to subsidize and who not to subsidize, I would vote that it subsidizes those relationships that our society sees as being outside the norm, not those relationships that are already commonly accepted as the norm.

 

[erowe1]

If the government subsidizes ANY relationships between consenting adults, it would be discrimination if it didn't subsidize ALL relationships between consenting adults. Period.

Fixed it.

 

[ronpaulitician]

Fixed it.

That's how I had it initially. But I feared people would bring animals into the discussion.

 

[scottditzen]

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?

Everyone knows all 3 year olds are straight lol.

Come on Traditional Conservative, that's not a strong argument.

 

[Annihilia]

You're comparing a race to men who think "Eww" when they see a hot naked girl, yet see another man's genitals and say "Yup, that's for me!"? That's an insult to black people everywhere.

Wow, it's astonishingly clear that you've never interacted with a single gay person or are trying desperately hard to project an air of unflinching heterosexuality to compensate for that accidental locker room chub back in high school.