Civil Liberties: Should Ron Paul discuss gay rights?

[heavenlyboy34]

He talks about human rights, which is a another way of explaining property rights. "Gay rights" is a political movement to seek special status and privilege from the state.

This^^

 

[cstarace]

You mean trying to get access to special rights that straight people already have? Wow, what a tyranny! Clearly abolishing marriage entirely is the way to go, and I'm not going to get much excited by simply extending statist marriage to more people, but please don't pretend that the gay marriage thing is some nasty plot to get gays some extra special rights that ordinary people don't have.

Yup. Bigots within the liberty movement love to hide behind their "special rights" mantra, when they know full well that's never been the case. Were gays trying to get "special rights" when they worked to illegitimize sodomy laws?

Nobody is trying to get "special rights". The "gay rights" movement is about human rights, individual rights, that ought to be extended to ALL INDIVIDUALS.

 

[PierzStyx]

No such things as gay rights. Groups don't have rights. Individuals have rights. This is important to understand and one the Doctor repeatedly emphasizes.

 

[2012]

I'm so damn glad that the Party of NO exists today.

 

[2012]

Monsters wearing a Ron Paul Halloween mask pretending to be for the liberty of all. Lovely, you all win whatever it is you wanted to win.

 

[2012]

You mean trying to get access to special rights that straight people already have? Wow, what a tyranny! Clearly abolishing marriage entirely is the way to go, and I'm not going to get much excited by simply extending statist marriage to more people, but please don't pretend that the gay marriage thing is some nasty plot to get gays some extra special rights that ordinary people don't have.



Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. How is advocating for gay marriage equivalent to this illegal sodomy that is apparently outlawed everywhere?

As to what is more important...advocating for freedom comes with the recognition that all individuals live radically different lives from each other and that presuming one 'type' of freedom is objectively more important than the other is remarkably short-sighted. Some people might feel free by being released from the shackles of taxation, while others might feel most emancipated by smashing the sexual traditions of the state. I make no claim to be able to read the priorities of every single person in the world, and as such I shall equally and vigourously defend the rights of all to freely go about their lives in whichever way they choose.

If you really think this 'liberty revolution' can only afford to narrowly focus on the issue of debt and maybe a war or two, then it isn't much of a liberty revolution.

Nobody is trying to get "special rights". The "gay rights" movement is about human rights, individual rights, that ought to be extended to ALL INDIVIDUALS.

I'm glad that you stand with liberty.

No such things as gay rights. Groups don't have rights. Individuals have rights. This is important to understand and one the Doctor repeatedly emphasizes.

I'm glad that you stand with....Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann & Rick Santorum? As your own signature says: "A man chooses. A slave obeys." I'd take a shot in the dark that your knees are more skinned than mine.

Ron Paul may not be for gay rights, but he certainly isn't against it. He's a constitutionalist, and a state's rights advocate.
A gay person is not a group, your theological group mindset approach to ruling over a minority is exactly what you just said that Ron Paul is against, and thank GOD that he is.

 

[Assassinrentao]

No such things as gay rights. Groups don't have rights. Individuals have rights. This is important to understand and one the Doctor repeatedly emphasizes.

Of course groups have rights... groups are composed of individuals. It sounds asinine to say individuals don't have "gay rights" when individuals themselves have the right to be gay.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What's with the sudden influx of people who prioritize sodomy? People, the whole global economic system is coming down about our heads, and gay sex is on the list of things to talk about?

It's the establishment agenda to throw out the Red Herring. They have been pushing it to distract, divert and divide.

No such things as gay rights. Groups don't have rights. Individuals have rights. This is important to understand and one the Doctor repeatedly emphasizes.

That's the way it should be. And for those who got their panties in a bunch about that, it means that every individual has rights. Period. No need to categorize and collectivize people.

 

[jkr]

divide

AND

conquer

2 for the price of one!

"We" are killing, maiming, and robbing people on a planetary scale...and buttsex is gonna come between us?

no way man, there are FAR more important, winnable, non-deviceive issues to push.
or are cops kicking in doors, shooting dogs, and stealing property over buttsex?

we will solve this later

 

[Sam I am]

I've said this before, but I'll say it again here. If we want to bring votes to Ron Paul, we really have to change the language


So instead of framing the argument as

"Gay rights" is a political movement to seek special status and privilege from the state.

you should frame it as

It shouldn't be the government's place to determine whether or not you're married, and to whom

Do you notice the difference? They both communicate the same concept, that government should get out of the business of marriage, but the first one is a lot more adversarial, and sets up gay rights activists as some sort of villain. The second one is a lot less adversarial, in-fact it's quite a bit more inviting. It also portrays the liberty mentally a whole lot more strongly.

 

[PierzStyx]

Of course groups have rights... groups are composed of individuals. It sounds asinine to say individuals don't have "gay rights" when individuals themselves have the right to be gay.

Groups do not. No one gets a right or privilege based on their ability to identify with any group. You have natural rights because you are a human being. But you do not have special rights because you belong to a group. Gays have no extra special rights than straight people and any law that favors either beyond the limits of the Constitution (such as "marriage" laws) are wrong. You don't get special privileges for being gay.

 

[Sam I am]

Groups do not. No one gets a right or privilege based on their ability to identify with any group. You have natural rights because you are a human being. But you do not have special rights because you belong to a group. Gays have no extra special rights than straight people and any law that favors either beyond the limits of the Constitution (such as "marriage" laws) are wrong. You don't get special privileges for being gay.

people who want "Gay rights" aren't asking for special privileges to be given to only gays. They are asking for gay people to be given the same privileges that everyone else enjoys, such as the ability to serve in the military among other things.

Arguing these kinds of semantics is a cheap tactic to bring the subject off-topic.

 

[Assassinrentao]

people who want "Gay rights" aren't asking for special privileges to be given to only gays. They are asking for gay people to be given the same privileges that everyone else enjoys, such as the ability to serve in the military among other things.

Arguing these kinds of semantics is a cheap tactic to bring the subject off-topic.

I know right? Gays are granted equal protection, under the 14th Amendment, but seems libertartains and conservatives don't believe in equality.

It makes perfect sense why they want to repeal the 14th Amendment, just let the states trample all over your rights that our nation fought so hard for in 1960s.

 

[Sam I am]

I know right? Gays are granted equal protection, under the 14th Amendment, but seems libertartains and conservatives don't believe in equality.

It makes perfect sense why they want to repeal the 14th Amendment, just let the states trample all over your rights that our nation fought so hard for in 1960s.

and what you're doing is called hyperbole.

Hyperbole is a cheap tactic attempting to appeal to emotion, rather than ration.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

Ron's already addressed this...

 

[kuckfeynes]

Ron Paul says government should not be concerning itself with marriage at all. The solution is not to give gay couples the same privileges as straight couples, the solution is to remove all privileges and treat every person as an individual.

Most social conservatives balk at the concept of gay rights because they are looking at it from a religious perspective (as they should because it is a religious matter). But even ones opposed to giving gay couples the same legal status as straight ones can make the slippery slope argument where anyone could marry anything for the benefits. The problem is just that they don't realize that they're already in the middle of that slippery slope, which started when government got involved in marriage in the first place.

 

[dirtdigger]

With Obama's recent and reluctant opinion on gay marriage, do you think Ron Paul should take a stand?

NO! This election is about the ECONOMY. Focus on the economy and don't fall for the diversionary tactics.

 

[pcgame]

..

 

[Zach Vega]

He should focus on economics. Have you seen his budget? It's awesome.