To settle this once and for all, Ron Paul on Gay Marriage...

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

The point is that if California judges have established that gay mariage is a legal contract any business that refuses to pay health benefits to a married gay person, it will be in violation of EEOC laws and can be sued or fined by the state.

Is this giving gay people equal rights or is it forcing a business to accept them?

Different gay couples have different priorities. I don't want any buisness to be forced to do anything. And as I have met many Libertarians who are also Gay, there is a whole caucus of them in the LP for example I don't think they want any buisness to do that either.

However, Gay couples should have the right to enjoin their assets (If these rights exist at all), visit their partners in the hospital, and any number of other things that have been denied to them.

The dangerous slope that people are sliding down is that they feel that because they think something is "wrong" they should be allowed to force other people to follow their morality. And this is tottally wrong.

 

[Ozwest]

in past threads, some of the theocrats have made it clear they feel that ron paul supports making gay marriage illegal. I am fine with the "keep the state out of it" argument. But the fact that he as a libertarian not a theocrat said in plain english.

"sure, they can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want." makes it clear that he supports their right to do this. Legal or not. That he does not have the right to impose his morality on anyone else. This is the crux of the issue. Ron paul is not their champion for legislating morality, which is exactly what people like theocrat want to do.

qft

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Ron Paul isn't God. To think that we should parrot every position he has and if he supports hay marriage than we should too is absurd.

Although speaking of God perhaps someone should start a "To settle this once and for all, God on gay marriage" thread. You want to me to look up some good biblical quotes?

Hey, so long as your willing to admit that this religious fascism is not supported by Ron Paul, no problem. What set this off in the first place was when we were being given Chuck Baldwin as the alternative to Ron Paul, and he simply DID NOT fit the bill. The Constiuttion Party is also not an alternative to the Libertarian party, or just Libertarian ideas in general. The Theocrats showed up in droves and set up shop in this movement and tried to act like those of us who supported Gay rights or the first amendment didn't belong here. And they tried to say that Ron Paul was a Theocrat just like them.

 

[Ozwest]

Different gay couples have different priorities. I don't want any buisness to be forced to do anything. And as I have met many Libertarians who are also Gay, there is a whole caucus of them in the LP for example I don't think they want any buisness to do that either.

However, Gay couples should have the right to enjoin their assets (If these rights exist at all), visit their partners in the hospital, and any number of other things that have been denied to them.

The dangerous slope that people are sliding down is that they feel that because they think something is "wrong" they should be allowed to force other people to follow their morality. And this is tottally wrong.

Nice.

Well said.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Can this thread be joined with the other one? They are the same subject by the same OP and right next to each other on the front page. Apparently people are confusing the two when responding.

The reason I broke this out into a new thread is explained in the first post.

We debated the issue of Gay Marriage, but until I found that video the issue of what Ron Paul felt personally on the issue was being debated back and forth as much as the words of the founding fathers on Seperation of Church and State.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Something Jesse Ventura said that makes more sense to me, is that he feels that we should replace all marriages with Civil Unions, and that the circumstances of those marriages, who is loving who, should be irreleveant.

We run into a problem here, because some people want a state binding contract to help them negotiate an end to the contract (divorce) and that makes sense. But when we go attaching religious conotations to it then we are flirting with that seperation of church and state problem.

If we are going to have a legal contract between two people that provides the legal rights of a marriage, we should either A. Make all such contracts "Civil Unions" and stay out of the buisness of who has a right to love or committ to whom.

Or B. Get out of the issue altogether.

 

[surf]

A marriage is equivalent to a contract. The only place the government should be involved is helping to resolve or ruling on contract disputes.

Perhaps this should be another thread, but the only comment Ron Paul made during the debate season that disappointed me had to do with his apparent "support" for "don't ask, don't tell"

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

A marriage is equivalent to a contract. The only place the government should be involved is helping to resolve or ruling on contract disputes.

Perhaps this should be another thread, but the only comment Ron Paul made during the debate season that disappointed me had to do with his apparent "support" for "don't ask, don't tell"

Right, but the problems arise when one religious group tries to say that they have the monopoly on a form of contract, that no one else may enter into that legal contract if it in any way violates their own personal religious views. This idea completely stomps on the 1st amendment, not to mention Libertarianism.

 

[Dave39168]

The government should only recognize people as individuals; not married heteros, homos, gays, lesbians, polygamists, or anything else.

Let consenting adults engage in whatever kind of voluntary agreement they want, and call it what they want. Just don't give them any special treatment or legal recognition.

This might disturb some Christians because it messes with tradition, but hey if you want freedom then you've got to let others to have it too.

 

[tremendoustie]

Different gay couples have different priorities. I don't want any buisness to be forced to do anything. And as I have met many Libertarians who are also Gay, there is a whole caucus of them in the LP for example I don't think they want any buisness to do that either.

Good

However, Gay couples should have the right to enjoin their assets (If these rights exist at all), visit their partners in the hospital, and any number of other things that have been denied to them.

Certainly if the government allows people to enter a contract to enjoin their assets, they should allow anyone to do so.

The government shouldn't be involved with hospitals at all, IMO. It's up to hospitals to set their visitation policies. If it were me, I would allow patients to submit lists of friends/family/whoever, who they would like to be able to visit them in an emergency, and I would respect their wishes.

As a patient, I would try to use hospitals that had a reasonable visitation policy.

The dangerous slope that people are sliding down is that they feel that because they think something is "wrong" they should be allowed to force other people to follow their morality. And this is totally wrong.

I agree with this. But, what is right is to get the government out of the business of determining who gets what rights and privileges entirely.

The correct response to someone who is trying to use the government to enforce morality is not, "No, we need to redefine the morality you are trying to impose so that it includes recognition for the beliefs of others". Rather, the correct response is, "That's not the governments job -- the government, which represents the use of force and violence, has no place in moral issues at all."

That is, I encourage you to not fight to get gay marriage recognized. Rather, fight to get government out of the business of marriage entirely. That way we can all be free.

 

[tremendoustie]

The government should only recognize people as individuals; not married heteros, homos, gays, lesbians, polygamists, or anything else.

Let consenting adults engage in whatever kind of voluntary agreement they want, and call it what they want. Just don't give them any special treatment or legal recognition.

This might disturb some Christians because it messes with tradition, but hey if you want freedom then you've got to let others to have it too.

Not at all, just the opposite. If anything messes with tradition it's the idea that government is the arbiter or some kind of authority for these moral issues. That's what offends me. The government should do as you say, and leave people alone.

 

[Todd]

He doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, Neil.

Chuck Baldwin said it pretty clearly as a Christian pastor. Until the government got involved for health reasons, it was essentially a religious issue. Thus if the government were out of the way, Marriage would be defined by the Churches.

I guess if a gay wanted to go to some Liberal church that would recognize the institution of gay marriage, then they were married.

Christian's should look at it this way. If God doesn't believe in gay marriage and he is omnipotent, then they are no more married in his eyes than the man in the moon.

 

[Ozwest]

Jesus Mate

You babble some shit.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Hey, so long as your willing to admit that this religious fascism is not supported by Ron Paul, no problem. What set this off in the first place was when we were being given Chuck Baldwin as the alternative to Ron Paul, and he simply DID NOT fit the bill. The Constiuttion Party is also not an alternative to the Libertarian party, or just Libertarian ideas in general. The Theocrats showed up in droves and set up shop in this movement and tried to act like those of us who supported Gay rights or the first amendment didn't belong here. And they tried to say that Ron Paul was a Theocrat just like them.

Does it matter? I doubt most Ron Paul supporters are here because of his stance on "gay rights". Me personally, I think gays aren't mentally stable and I wouldn't trust them. I put my opinions out in the open and I don't care if I get flak for it. And it really doesn't matter to me whether or not Ron Paul agrees with me. For the record, the issues of "gay rights" is about 1000 on my list of priorities, I have a lot of other things to worry about right now.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Just because you endorse or vote for someone does not mean that you agree with every single one of their positions.

I suspect that Ron Paul is somewhere between the LP and CP. He was probably going to remain neutral due to this point...that is, until Barr slighted him.

 

[Ozwest]

Does it matter? I doubt most Ron Paul supporters are here because of his stance on "gay rights". Me personally, I think gays aren't mentally stable and I wouldn't trust them. I put my opinions out in the open and I don't care if I get flak for it. And it really doesn't matter to me whether or not Ron Paul agrees with me. For the record, the issues of "gay rights" is about 1000 on my list of priorities, I have a lot of other things to worry about right now.

I respect you for being honest

And I have better things to be concerned about also.

But, I have no problem with gay people. Some of the best friends I have.

 

[Ozwest]

Just because you endorse or vote for someone does not mean that you agree with every single one of their positions.

I suspect that Ron Paul is somewhere between the LP and CP. He was probably going to remain neutral due to this point...that is, until Barr slighted him.

Really spunky women seem to hang around gay blokes.

I say gobble them up, or vice - a - versa.

 

[klamath]

Different gay couples have different priorities. I don't want any buisness to be forced to do anything. And as I have met many Libertarians who are also Gay, there is a whole caucus of them in the LP for example I don't think they want any buisness to do that either.

However, Gay couples should have the right to enjoin their assets (If these rights exist at all), visit their partners in the hospital, and any number of other things that have been denied to them.

The dangerous slope that people are sliding down is that they feel that because they think something is "wrong" they should be allowed to force other people to follow their morality. And this is tottally wrong.

You say you don't believe businesses should be forced to do anything but if gay marriage is defined as legal in the state of California, businesses WILL be forced BY THE STATE to give all priviledges to to Gay employees.
As has been stated before instead of fighting to get state sanctioned gay mariages why not fight to get the state out of marriage?
This is why I support the sales tax over income taxes. There are hundreds of pages in the tax codes the are used to manipulate the countries social behavior.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I agree..and the gays wont stop there. They will go to churches and demand to be married there..if the minister balks..which ministers SHOULD DO...the gays will try to burn the church down...they will work to close all christian churches down in this country if the christian ministers stand on the Gospel of Christ. THiS is what it is leading to and i will fight it until I leave the planet! ToNES

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

It is NOTHING but a PLOY to further destroy Christianity in the USA..and I will DAMN well fight it. tones