Ron on "Homosexual Agenda"?

[paulaholic]

Does anyone have a link to his response to the "homosexual agenda" question last night?

BTW, all those gay questions were complete hokum. How can people be so unabashedly hateful to an entire group of people based on just one of many characteristics?

Thanks!

[Mr. White]

homophobia? Fear of that which makes you uncomfortable and you don't understand? I can't remember what he said.

[james1906]

I didn't know whether to laugh or cringe. They think gays are public enemy #1, at least most of the neocons put the Muslim bogeyman at #1. No gays have committed terrorism that I know of.

[Kregener]

You can bet Ron Paul is against ANY agenda that seeks "special" rights for any "special" segment of society.

Homosexuals are already guaranteed the EXACT SAME rights under the Constitution as the rest of us.

Or what is left of those rights anyway...

[ronpaulitician]

How can people be so unabashedly hateful to an entire group of people based on just one of many characteristics?
Ignorance.

[happyphilter]

im a Catholic and I am appalled at the people there that night. Where is the peace, wheres is the acceptance?! There was so much hate for gays, we are taught to accept and love all people, even if they spit on you and beat you you are supposed to turn the other cheek. So many condone this war, but why? It sickens me that these are the kind of people representing my faith.

[Vaughn]

im a Catholic and I am appalled at the people there that night. Where is the peace, where’s is the acceptance?! There was so much hate for gays, we are taught to accept and love all people, even if they spit on you and beat you you are supposed to turn the other cheek. So many condone this war, but why? It sickens me that these are the kind of people representing my faith.

I totally agree, I have many Christian friends and NONE of them are like that. They are good people who actually try and live out the creed, Love thy neighbor as thy self. Too bad the judgmental hypocrites are always the loudest ones out there…

Still the "family values debate" was barely half full. Perhaps it shows that these types have lost credibility with the majority of the faithful.

[RadioDJforPaul]

My favorite part was when they brought out the "former homosexual" who turned straight thanks to the Lord.

wow...

[10thAmendmentMan]

My favorite part was when they brought out the "former homosexual" who turned straight thanks to the Lord.

wow...

That was one of a handful of questions that made me laugh out loud.

[john_anderson_ii]

I think these people lost touch with reality and developed an unhealthy obsession with homosexuality a long time ago. I mean seriously, if something bothers you that deeply, how about you stop thinking about it for a while?

The 2nd dumbest thing uttered was the "What are we going to do about Islam" line. I wasn't watching, I just heard it on audio, so I'm not sure who said it. What a retarded statement! How about "nothing". That's a pretty reasonable answer. As if they have the power to make a religion disappear, or change.

[ThePieSwindler]

Does anyone have a link to his response to the "homosexual agenda" question last night?

BTW, all those gay questions were complete hokum. How can people be so unabashedly hateful to an entire group of people based on just one of many characteristics?

Thanks!

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/

last one on that page. The answer islike 5 minutes into the piece or so, maybe 10... its in the first half.

[leipo]

All that homophobic questioning actually gave the so-called top tiers a legit reason no to show up. :(

[Noog]

There were a few moments when I realized why the other top tiers didn't show...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Gay marriage is cool by me*

[apropos]

I'm tired of all the disparate agendas. I want an American agenda.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

All that homophobic questioning actually gave the so-called top tiers a legit reason no to show up. :(

That's why the Libertarian Party exists errr supposedly

Socially Tolerant, Fiscally Responsible ;)

[billv]

Does anyone have a link to his response to the "homosexual agenda" question last night?

BTW, all those gay questions were complete hokum. How can people be so unabashedly hateful to an entire group of people based on just one of many characteristics?

Thanks!

I think it's a distraction. Take the plank out of your own eye before your brothers speck in his eye.

[V-rod]

Noo, you got it all wrong. These are COMPASSIONATE conservatives who want all of them to be cured of teh Gay :D

On a serious note, I wanted to laugh at that "cured" homosexual who was asking one of the questions, but I just felt sorry for his wife. He will probably leave her for another man someday.

[mikelovesgod]

im a Catholic and I am appalled at the people there that night. Where is the peace, wheres is the acceptance?! There was so much hate for gays, we are taught to accept and love all people, even if they spit on you and beat you you are supposed to turn the other cheek. So many condone this war, but why? It sickens me that these are the kind of people representing my faith.

You hate the sin, love the sinner. You don't accept someone because they commit homosexuality, but because they are made in the image and likeness of God. If they spread that agenda on others I see nothing wrong with repealing such ideas in the same degree that they are sent at others.

They use the government as a means of getting special treatment.

[Omnis]

Ron Paul basically said what he's always said: that rights belong to the individual, etc.

Ron Paul is the only guy on earth who won't be surprising, yet is incredibly exciting.

[Bradley in DC]

Dr. Paul has a lot of gay and bisexual supporters who like his defense of individual rights. Much of the self-described "homosexual agenda" is socialism through group rights in one color or another.

[GayRPFan]

Yes, I agree he does support individual rights. But, unfortunately he personally opposes gay marriage. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks my 22+ monogamous relationship is viewed negatively because I love a man. Personally, loving someone has nothing to do with sex. Love is the primary foundation of humanity and same-sex love is nothing less or greater than different-sex love relationships. It all comes to down to love. Why one would not personally support S-S marriage is beyond me. At least, his personal views do not interfere with my individual rights, and that is a blessing. For this, I can at least, continue my support for Ron Paul.... albeit, with reservations.

[noxagol]

Yeah, I wish I was there. They need to research some anthropology more. Marriage is NOT universal and is NOT universally man and woman. There are cultures where they don't marry at all and some where marriage is same sex.

[Shellshock1918]

I didn't know whether to laugh or cringe. They think gays are public enemy #1, at least most of the neocons put the Muslim bogeyman at #1. No gays have committed terrorism that I know of.
if they did, it would be faaaabulous!!

lol j/k

[Broadlighter]

Maybe I need some educating, but where in the Constitution or in Federal Statutes is marriage between a man and a woman recognized as a legal union? I don't believe there are such laws and if that's the case if there are no special rights for married straights, why should there be special rights for married gays?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yes, I agree he does support individual rights. But, unfortunately he personally opposes gay marriage. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks my 22+ monogamous relationship is viewed negatively because I love a man. Personally, loving someone has nothing to do with sex. Love is the primary foundation of humanity and same-sex love is nothing less or greater than different-sex love relationships. It all comes to down to love. Why one would not personally support S-S marriage is beyond me. At least, his personal views do not interfere with my individual rights, and that is a blessing. For this, I can at least, continue my support for Ron Paul.... albeit, with reservations.

He doesn't oppose gay marriage, douche bag.

[ronpaulitician]

He doesn't oppose gay marriage, douche bag.
Way to welcome a new member.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Way to welcome a new member.

Some people need to get their facts straight ;)

[ronpaulitician]

Some people need to get their facts straight ;)
No need for name calling.

[ThePieSwindler]

Yes, I agree he does support individual rights. But, unfortunately he personally opposes gay marriage. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks my 22+ monogamous relationship is viewed negatively because I love a man. Personally, loving someone has nothing to do with sex. Love is the primary foundation of humanity and same-sex love is nothing less or greater than different-sex love relationships. It all comes to down to love. Why one would not personally support S-S marriage is beyond me. At least, his personal views do not interfere with my individual rights, and that is a blessing. For this, I can at least, continue my support for Ron Paul.... albeit, with reservations.

He has said more than once that he belives it should not be a government issue at all, and at the very least, it should be a states rights issue. Here is a piece where he actually says he thinks homosexuality is alot more complicated than just being a "sin". Hes actually quite sympathetic, at least as sympathetic as smeone who doesnt pander can be. Heres where he talks about it to a very religious talk show host:


Is homosexuality a sin? Paul says he’s “not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”

Does he believe God says homosexuality is a sin? “Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.” I point out that, Biblically-speaking, all human beings are made in God’s image but not all are God’s children; some people are children of the devil. For example, in John 8:44ff, Jesus tells some folks they believe He is not God because their father is the devil.

Second, he also says in a Q&A section of a speech (i think its the kansas city rally speech, but i have to fin where in the speech - ill find it and show it to you) he says he belives individuals should have a right to sign wahtever sort of contract they want, and it should be either recognized by government, or governmet should for the most part stay of of marriage altogether, that way you can call it whatever you want and have the same priveleges as straight married couples. He isn't opposed to homosexuality, though he certainly does not see it as necessarily moral or good, he doesnt see it as a sin either like many christians do (though most that i know of are sympathetic/amiable, not judgemental, to homosexuals).

So basically you are wrong in your reasoning/thinking, and misunderstand his position. His position on ABORTION is very distinct - he is personally opposed to it and believes it is murder, but would leave it up to the states to deal with. He says no such thing about homosexuality being "wrong" anywhere, but does say it should be an issue at the state level with marriage licenses, etc, or not even a government issue at all.

[microtron]

Stating that he doesn't oppose it and backing it up with facts would go a much longer way toward 'getting their facts straight', and retaining a self-professed almost-not-a-RP-voter, than the statement alone and name calling. :mad:

[CMoore]

http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Stating that he doesn't oppose it and backing it up with facts would go a much longer way toward 'getting their facts straight', and retaining a self-professed almost-not-a-RP-voter, than the statement alone and name calling. :mad:

Well, I don't see how my attitude could possibly sway his support of Ron Paul. The guy that posted before you said enough. I don't like trolls.

[V-rod]

I'm pretty sure the gay threat is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
Knowing our government's incompetency, this was already made, and immediately stolen by the gay activists.
If we don't act now, the gay agenda terrorists will set it off, and GOD help us all. :eek:

[literatim]

A lot of the reason that this is such a focus is because the federal keeps butting in State affairs by trying to force States to recognize marriages from other States that aren't legal.

[johngr]

I have nothing against homosexuals. Buggery, on the other hand, I find personally distasteful. Most normal people find this http://www.boilingfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/Gay%20Pride.jpg irepresentative example of an image search for "Gay Pride" (nothing to be proud of, imo) disgusting and (where the "agenda" comes in) don't want their tax money to go to have kids taught that it's normal. If twins aren't 100% same-oriented, I think it follows that acceptance of homosexuality will increaase the prevalence of it. That is only a purely cultural issue to the extent that the government is not promoting it with hate crime laws, labor laws and homosexual education.

On the marraige issue, the State should ideally have nothing to do with it. If gays want to marry, they should be able to (or make any other contract they want). It's none of the State's business, imo.

[ZandarKoad]

You hate the sin, love the sinner. You don't accept someone because they commit homosexuality, but because they are made in the image and likeness of God. If they spread that agenda on others I see nothing wrong with repealing such ideas in the same degree that they are sent at others.To hate the sin and love the sinner is impossible. They are, in fact, one and the same. They cannot be separated by sophistry. They can ONLY be separated as outlined in the Word of God: a process that begins with abject humility and REPENTANCE which by definition means turning AWAY from sin. Did you know that Jesus does not love any of the people in hell? Their time for repentance is past. The homosexuals that are still alive have a chance to obtain his mercy and love, but they do not have it by default. We are all CREATED BY God, but we are not all saved from damnation by the misnomer, 'Children of God'.


On the marriage issue, the State should ideally have nothing to do with it. If gays want to marry, they should be able to (or make any other contract they want). It's none of the State's business, imo. I agree. HOWEVER, there is no historical/scriptural/cultural context whatsoever for the lifelong sexual union of two men, that's why there is no confidence in that private union. They desperately desire public/legal validation precisely because the Bible, the created order, and the history of the world condemn it.

Ron Paul is simply in error at this point (despite the political prudence of his position). Homosexuality is sin, plain and simple. American Jurist Prudence, the Old Testament and the New Testament verify this fact. He will loose support from some Bible believers but those who fail to support him due to this issue will be mistaken for doing so:

1) Ron Paul doesn't CHANGE his message to suite the audience at hand. He didn't believe Sodomy was a sin, so he said so. He didn't try to smear the conversation with crap about 'strong families' or something. Once again you can count on Ron Paul to say what he means, and act on what he says. The Bible says let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'. What other political candidate comes even close to Ron Paul on this count?

2) Sodomy laws should not be enforced or legislated at the national level. It's an interesting discussion to determine the belief systems of candidates, but it won't (SHOULDN'T) have any effect on how the execute their service as president.

[JMann]

The more a guy hate gays the more likely you are wanting some man loving. The fact of the matter is they hate themselves because they don't understand why the gods made them that way.

[JMann]

To hate the sin and love the sinner is impossible. They are, in fact, one and the same. They cannot be separated by sophistry. They can ONLY be separated as outlined in the Word of God: a process that begins with abject humility and REPENTANCE which by definition means turning AWAY from sin. Did you know that Jesus does not love any of the people in hell? Their time for repentance is past. The homosexuals that are still alive have a chance to obtain his mercy and love, but they do not have it by default. We are all CREATED BY God, but we are not all saved from damnation by the misnomer, 'Children of God'.

I agree. HOWEVER, there is no historical/scriptural/cultural context whatsoever for the lifelong sexual union of two men, that's why there is no confidence in that private union. They desperately desire public/legal validation precisely because the Bible, the created order, and the history of the world condemn it.

Ron Paul is simply in error at this point (despite the political prudence of his position). Homosexuality is sin, plain and simple. American Jurist Prudence, the Old Testament and the New Testament verify this fact. He will loose support from some Bible believers but those who fail to support him due to this issue will be mistaken for doing so:

1) Ron Paul doesn't CHANGE his message to suite the audience at hand. He didn't believe Sodomy was a sin, so he said so. He didn't try to smear the conversation with crap about 'strong families' or something. Once again you can count on Ron Paul to say what he means, and act on what he says. The Bible says let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'. What other political candidate comes even close to Ron Paul on this count?

2) Sodomy laws should not be enforced or legislated at the national level. It's an interesting discussion to determine the belief systems of candidates, but it won't (SHOULDN'T) have any effect on how the execute their service as president.

Who is the God person you speak of? You base your hate of people on Moses' imaginary friend? Man, you must be a genius.

[Omnis]

Yes, I agree he does support individual rights. But, unfortunately he personally opposes gay marriage. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks my 22+ monogamous relationship is viewed negatively because I love a man. Personally, loving someone has nothing to do with sex. Love is the primary foundation of humanity and same-sex love is nothing less or greater than different-sex love relationships. It all comes to down to love. Why one would not personally support S-S marriage is beyond me. At least, his personal views do not interfere with my individual rights, and that is a blessing. For this, I can at least, continue my support for Ron Paul.... albeit, with reservations.

The more important thing is that he doesn't want the federal (or any) government to control it. What happens when you get a Sam Brownback later on who will ban/annul your marriage?

[leipo]

To hate the sin and love the sinner is impossible. They are, in fact, one and the same. They cannot be separated by sophistry. They can ONLY be separated as outlined in the Word of God: a process that begins with abject humility and REPENTANCE which by definition means turning AWAY from sin. Did you know that Jesus does not love any of the people in hell? Their time for repentance is past. The homosexuals that are still alive have a chance to obtain his mercy and love, but they do not have it by default. We are all CREATED BY God, but we are not all saved from damnation by the misnomer, 'Children of God'.

I agree. HOWEVER, there is no historical/scriptural/cultural context whatsoever for the lifelong sexual union of two men, that's why there is no confidence in that private union. They desperately desire public/legal validation precisely because the Bible, the created order, and the history of the world condemn it.

Ron Paul is simply in error at this point (despite the political prudence of his position). Homosexuality is sin, plain and simple. American Jurist Prudence, the Old Testament and the New Testament verify this fact. He will loose support from some Bible believers but those who fail to support him due to this issue will be mistaken for doing so:

1) Ron Paul doesn't CHANGE his message to suite the audience at hand. He didn't believe Sodomy was a sin, so he said so. He didn't try to smear the conversation with crap about 'strong families' or something. Once again you can count on Ron Paul to say what he means, and act on what he says. The Bible says let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'. What other political candidate comes even close to Ron Paul on this count?

2) Sodomy laws should not be enforced or legislated at the national level. It's an interesting discussion to determine the belief systems of candidates, but it won't (SHOULDN'T) have any effect on how the execute their service as president.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

[leipo]

Not that i believe there is only one god, but i thought it made sense for you hating monotheists.

[speciallyblend]

Hugs and kisses to all, now make up or ill tazer your azzez ok;)

[ZandarKoad]

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Excellent quote from Matthew 7. Thank you for inserting a larger portion of the context as well. All too often people just say "Judge not, that you be not judged." Or even just, "Judge not!". I've met people who actually believe 'Thou shalt not judge' is a command given in the Bible... It's amazing what people believe about the Bible without actually reading it.

[leipo]

Excellent quote from Matthew 7. Thank you for inserting a larger portion of the context as well. All too often people just say "Judge not, that you be not judged." Or even just, "Judge not!". I've met people who actually believe 'Thou shalt not judge' is a command given in the Bible... It's amazing what people believe about the Bible without actually reading it.

I don't believe in commands. It's just a piece of advice.

[angelatc]

Yes, I agree he does support individual rights. But, unfortunately he personally opposes gay marriage. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks my 22+ monogamous relationship is viewed negatively because I love a man. Personally, loving someone has nothing to do with sex. Love is the primary foundation of humanity and same-sex love is nothing less or greater than different-sex love relationships. It all comes to down to love. Why one would not personally support S-S marriage is beyond me. At least, his personal views do not interfere with my individual rights, and that is a blessing. For this, I can at least, continue my support for Ron Paul.... albeit, with reservations.

Well, I don't think anybody agrees with him 100% on everything. For the record I do support gay marriage, but I actually prefers Paul's plan of taking government sanctioned marriage totally out of the game. Let it be a church and social issue.

[MikeStanart]

Anytime I see this Neo-Conservative "Christian" BS ( I'm a Christian BTW); I cringe.

I think.... WWJD?

Would Jesus judge these people?
Would Jesus press his religion onto other people?

NO! He would LEAD by example!


By judging; we neglect a large amount of what Jesus taught us. Therefore; making us look like hypocrites in the eyes of those who we are trying to win over!

[Ridiculous]

Homosexuals? Seriously who cares. What do I care if two guys want man love?


What about the children? What about family values?

As long as you aren't trying to touch my kid, or someone else's, I could care less. I would feel just as strongly about some dude touching or talking sexually to my daughter as I would my son. (I am speaking hypothetically I don't have kids)

Inappropriate public displays are wrong no matter if it hetero or ****. (although two lipstick lesbians getting it on is kind of hot....)

If two gay dudes or lesbians moved in next to me, I could really care less as long as they keep their lawn mowed....

Who cares what is happening in someone else's bedroom. It doesn't effect me!

If two people want to enter into a contract that doesn't hurt anyone else. Let them! It is their business. I could give a shit what they want to call it.

[Vaughn]

Anytime I see this Neo-Conservative "Christian" BS ( I'm a Christian BTW); I cringe.

I think.... WWJD?

Would Jesus judge these people?
Would Jesus press his religion onto other people?

NO! He would LEAD by example!


By judging; we neglect a large amount of what Jesus taught us. Therefore; making us look like hypocrites in the eyes of those who we are trying to win over!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I think we're getting too much into group rights. We don't get our rights because we're gay, or women, or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals, so every individual should be treated the same way. There's no gay rights, or womens rights, or minority rights. There's only one kind of rights and that is individual rights. The Constitution is meant not to protect group rights, but individual rights and I think we have to remember that. Group rights is an oxymoron.

[Severius]

That was one of a handful of questions that made me laugh out loud.

Yeah, me too. It reminded me of the South Park episode "Cartman Sucks". Funny yet terribly, terribly sad.

[Kregener]

I don't believe in commands.

Well, here's hoping you never have a cop say "Freeze!" to you then.

:rolleyes:

[ceakins]

You can bet Ron Paul is against ANY agenda that seeks "special" rights for any "special" segment of society.

Homosexuals are already guaranteed the EXACT SAME rights under the Constitution as the rest of us.

Or what is left of those rights anyway...


Actually in the State of Washington they had to pass a law so people couldn't discriminate because of sexual orientation. The bill would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, lending and employment.

[JMann]

I think we're getting too much into group rights. We don't get our rights because we're gay, or women, or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals, so every individual should be treated the same way. There's no gay rights, or womens rights, or minority rights. There's only one kind of rights and that is individual rights. The Constitution is meant not to protect group rights, but individual rights and I think we have to remember that. Group rights is an oxymoron.


Exactly, heterosexuals, as a group, shouldn't be able to enter into a marriage contracts to the person they love when non heterosexuals are not provided the same right. How absurd that heterosexuals think they get some kind of special right because they belong to a group that falls in the majority.

[ceakins]

im a Catholic and I am appalled at the people there that night. Where is the peace, wheres is the acceptance?! There was so much hate for gays, we are taught to accept and love all people, even if they spit on you and beat you you are supposed to turn the other cheek. So many condone this war, but why? It sickens me that these are the kind of people representing my faith.

I grew up a Jehovah's Witness, I hated Christians for a long time, but have found REAL Christians that actually practice what they preach. Not the hypocrites that are part of the religious right. My new philosophy is to take each person for who they are, religion aside. And I'm come to the conclusion that religious extremism is bad no matter what religion it is. Extremist distort the original message. Oh and I'm an atheist now, not a preachy one, because I've also come to an understanding that some people need religion. It's just not for me.

[American]

all those gay questions were complete hokum. How can people be so unabashedly hateful to an entire group of people based on just one of many characteristics?

Thanks!

Religion has always been used to Divide, not unite people. This comes as no surprise to me. Religion is also attributed with killing more people then any other one thing in the history of the world.

[IRO-bot]

Religion has always been used to Divide, not unite people. This comes as no surprise to me. Religion is also attributed with killing more people then any other one thing in the history of the world.

Amen!

[JMann]

Religion has always been used to Divide, not unite people. This comes as no surprise to me. Religion is also attributed with killing more people then any other one thing in the history of the world.

Not being a religious person I understand what you are saying but atheistic governments have far more blood on their hands than religious ones. Lest you not forget Stalin's Russia, China, Germany, Saddam's Iraq. These leaders as well as many others are/where hardly theocracies but have the blood of tens of millions on their hands.

Religion in and of itself doesn't murder but the actions of corrupt humans do. There is no doubt the spiritual as well as agnostics work to divide people and it should be the level headed people regardless of their belief system to marginalize those that seek to destroy peace and liberty.

[IRO-bot]

Can't exactly count germany in an athiest side. They were trying to exterminate a Religion Suddam also used secular religious sides to force submission.

[Ridiculous]

Not being a religious person I understand what you are saying but atheistic governments have far more blood on their hands than religious ones.

Yeah, if you go back maybe a hundred years. But if you look over the history of mankind: religion is the most deadly thing in the world.

[quickmike]

Not being a religious person I understand what you are saying but atheistic governments have far more blood on their hands than religious ones. Lest you not forget Stalin's Russia, China, Germany, Saddam's Iraq. These leaders as well as many others are/where hardly theocracies but have the blood of tens of millions on their hands.

Religion in and of itself doesn't murder but the actions of corrupt humans do. There is no doubt the spiritual as well as agnostics work to divide people and it should be the level headed people regardless of their belief system to marginalize those that seek to destroy peace and liberty.

I don think religion itself is the problem. The problem is ORGANIZED religion. If someone believe in some god or some set of religios beliefs, I dont understand why they cant just believe in it on their own, without the need for organization.

People as individuals are usually fine people, no matter what their religion is. Its when they join a club that they start to become dangerous and fall into the "group think" trap.

[V-rod]

Even though I am not a fan of organized religion, that is not the problem. If its atheistic, secular, or a theocratic, it is totalitarianism, personal corruption, greed, paranoia, and hate is what destroys everything. From a small religious group, to a family, to your workplace.

[mikelovesgod]

To hate the sin and love the sinner is impossible. They are, in fact, one and the same. They cannot be separated by sophistry.

Or your ignorance of distinguishing rational being. You just don't know what you are talking about, and it's not sophistry. Let me make this really easy for you because I've heard this baloney one too many times and people have very little background in metaphysics.

When I paint I am not a Painter, but a painter. I'm still Michael, born in upstate NY. When I steal I'm not a Thief, but a thief. The acts we perform do not make up our being, but describe our capacities. Our capacities may define us in social circles, but not as to our being as a human being. John may draw, steal, be nice and be a father, but he is only still John and all those acts are still extrinsic to his being.

I can love my mother who is an alcoholic but not her alcoholism if that makes it really easy for to understand.



They can ONLY be separated as outlined in the Word of God: a process that begins with abject humility and REPENTANCE which by definition means turning AWAY from sin. Did you know that Jesus does not love any of the people in hell?

You are misusing the word love. God loves all that he created. The problem is they cannot love back. God cannot hate because everything that is created is loved because they share in being. God IS love. Everything created shares it's being from the creator. When the lines of the Old Testament where it says "God hates (fill-in-the-blank)" it's said analogically as in the form of spiritual abandonment.



I agree. HOWEVER, there is no historical/scriptural/cultural context whatsoever for the lifelong sexual union of two men, that's why there is no confidence in that private union. They desperately desire public/legal validation precisely because the Bible, the created order, and the history of the world condemn it.

Ron Paul is simply in error at this point (despite the political prudence of his position). Homosexuality is sin, plain and simple. American Jurist Prudence, the Old Testament and the New Testament verify this fact. He will loose support from some Bible believers but those who fail to support him due to this issue will be mistaken for doing so:

I agree with everything you said above.


1) Ron Paul doesn't CHANGE his message to suite the audience at hand. He didn't believe Sodomy was a sin, so he said so. He didn't try to smear the conversation with crap about 'strong families' or something. Once again you can count on Ron Paul to say what he means, and act on what he says. The Bible says let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'. What other political candidate comes even close to Ron Paul on this count?

2) Sodomy laws should not be enforced or legislated at the national level. It's an interesting discussion to determine the belief systems of candidates, but it won't (SHOULDN'T) have any effect on how the execute their service as president.

I digress slightly. It says that are bound to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When someone begins to enforce their lifestyle choices on me and my children it becomes a problem. This is the one cross-road that Dr. Paul travels weirdly on, although I'm still a follower of his. He says we shouldn't pander to a group, but to think that those who abandon the natural law in public should get the same freedoms as those who do forgets the simple principle in politics as the common good. The common good of reproduction and solid families do fall into the pursuit of those three things, and so does life (where Paul states the states to decide on abortion but it is covered under "life"). The federal gov't promises to protect those three things.

For an historical reference that is now current news look at the societies of Europe and Russia and their upcoming financial disasters because they lack a population that will sustain their nations. Many countries now pay you to have children.

[mikelovesgod]

Yeah, if you go back maybe a hundred years. But if you look over the history of mankind: religion is the most deadly thing in the world.

Every group or collective organization is a religion. To say they are all equivocally dangerous is ridiculous and ignorant. Show me your version of an ideal society in the history of mankind.

[richard1984]

I don think religion itself is the problem. The problem is ORGANIZED religion. If someone believe in some god or some set of religios beliefs, I dont understand why they cant just believe in it on their own, without the need for organization.

People as individuals are usually fine people, no matter what their religion is. Its when they join a club that they start to become dangerous and fall into the "group think" trap.

I would say the problem comes when a religion becomes an institution. Real Christian churches aren't a problem because they're local and the people/members are in control. When the organization because institutionalized, though, we start seeing problems. That is because the people at the top almost always are, or become, corrupt (because they don't have to answer to anyone) and, thus, the people are led astray.

You know what I mean?

The bigger organizations get, the more money and power they harness and the more problems they produce (usually).

That's why Ron Paul is such a great man--he has strong moral fiber and great self-control. Most people aren't able to be so steadfast and principled in a world of corruption. Most people succumb to temptation very easily.

[DocGrimes]

Seems to me that there are several converging issues in regards to 'gay marriage'; freedom to associate, freedom to contract, state jurisdictions, and probably a few others.

I also want to note that it amuses me also when I hear Christians debate about homosexuality without distinguishing between the desires and the actual acts. For those of such Christian bent (such as myself) it is the same issue basically as heterosexually based sins. Having the thought/desire is one thing, indulging said thought/desire is the actual sin.

That said, having homosexual thoughts or tendencies is not a sin any more than having heterosexual lusts. Separate the impulse from the act.

That as I said was for us Christian sorts.

Now, governmentally I agree wholeheartedly that marriage really has nothing to do with the state. Often what we are speaking of as marriage now is simply a contractual a agreement between three parties, the state and two persons, usually for the purpose of tax breaks/benefits.

I hold such state licensed 'marriages' as simply a contract with state and not necessarily a marriage. The state or whoever makes that contract can call it whatever they want. As long as that contract with the state is freely entered into and does not harm me or my liberty then it is of no real concern to me as a Christian.

Though I personally find the act of homosexual copulation distasteful and immoral that does not give me the right to restrict another's freedom to act in such ways. Further, because I view the state licensure as a contractual agreement for tax benefits I feel that the state should not be allowed to discriminate on who can receive those benefits based upon sex.

Well, unless some portion of the contract has to do with only functions that male/female couples can provide. And if such is the case then it isn't about sex but about contractual performance for a compensation.

The moral issue of (state granted) marriage contracts is a non-issue.

So is this a matter of marriage or ability to contract? I say it is the later because actual marriage is a matter of freedom to associate at the very least, or a spiritual matter which is outside state jurisdiction.

How have we even fallen to the point where we even look to the government for guidence on issues such as marriage?

[BillyDkid]

My favorite part was when they brought out the "former homosexual" who turned straight thanks to the Lord.

wow...
Jesus, how pathetic.

[JMann]

"Though I personally find the act of homosexual copulation distasteful and immoral"

Why is that? Do you find the act of heterosexual copulation distasteful and immoral? I can understand saying the thought disgust you, that would be somewhat normal just as a gay man might find sleeping with a woman to be disgusting.

I don't understand why you would find two people expressing strong feelings for one another immoral.

[Kregener]

Yeah, if you go back maybe a hundred years. But if you look over the history of mankind: religion is the most deadly thing in the world.

Tell that to the 50 million victims of Stalin's "purges" , the 30 million victims of Mao's communist push, the 6,000,000 victims of the Japanese military, near 2,400,000 were murdered by the communist Khmer Rouge, 1,600,000 victims of communist North Korea's (G)odless regimes, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The (G)odless are as capable of anyone of murder and rapine.

I would submit that war, being an undertaking of governments, has prematurely killed more people than any other single cause, so by logic, government should be outlawed worldwide.

Of course, evolution is the "religion" followed by 99.9% of the (G)odless, so there ya go then. Religion IS a blight!

:rolleyes:

[SeanEdwards]

Why one would not personally support S-S marriage is beyond me.

I don't think society should endorse or promote same sex couples raising children.

I don't care what two consenting adults do with each other, but the state does have an interest in protecting children, and it's my opinion that child rearing is best done in a traditional male-female monogamous family relationship.

That doesn't mean I think the state should take the children of gay people away from them or anything like that. My concern is that I do not think, for the purposes of adoption, that a gay couple should be regarded as an equally desirable child-rearing environment to a traditional hetero couple. I think there is an element in the gay marriage movement, that expects equal rights in adoption to flow automatically from such a societal change, and I don't want to see it. My opinion is that when human biology/science allows two men to produce an offspring, then they will have a right to claim equal breeding rights as the traditional model.

This isn't discrimination against gays. This is discrimination against ALL family groups that are not traditional one male one female partnerships. Natural law demands male and female gametes for conception, and I believe that natural law therefore favors the same structure for child rearing. I also think the state should not be in the business of endorsing or promoting single motherhood/fatherhood.

What I find objectionable about the "gay agenda" is the apparent determination that not only should homosexual behavior be tolerated, but that it should be admired and respected, and considered as "good" as traditional lifestyles. I don't like anybody demanding that I admire and respect them, and certainly not on the basis of their sexual shenanigans.

P.S. I'm an atheist, who was raised in San Francisco and has known and been friends with homosexual folks my whole life. I'm just saying that because I know some people reading my above comments will naturally assume I'm some kind of holy roller freak from Arkansas who likes to go *** bashing on weekends, and I ain't that.

[Kregener]

The state should not be involved in marriage, any more than it should be involved in education, business, or any number of other things.

Needing a government "license" to wed makes as much sense as needing a government license to kiss.

Marriage is sacred, and is supposed to be a covenant, not a contract.

The state got involved so there some legal standing upon DIVORCE. How to "divvy up" assets, etc.

[ZandarKoad]

Or your ignorance of distinguishing rational being. You just don't know what you are talking about, and it's not sophistry. Let me make this really easy for you because I've heard this baloney one too many times and people have very little background in metaphysics.

...

The relationship between the sin and the sinner is best detailed by the Word of God, not the metaphysicist. You do make it very easy to understand, but to take an a priori position that the actor is separate from his actions is a fallacy corrected best by examining the teachings of Jesus Christ himself on the topic of Hell. It would indeed be illogical, unjust, and contradictory for God to punish a man for eternity for acts that were not his own. When we act, these acts define our character. They may not change our physical, intellectual, or social condition as humans, but they certainly change our moral standing before the Creator. This is wholly consistent with the concept of eternal damnation which is plainly taught by Jesus and his disciples. Furthermore, how would God punish sin apart from the sinner? Can he roll it up into a ball and burn it? Can he rip it into shreds? Can he humiliate it? Sin has no meaning without a guilty party.


You are misusing the word love. God loves all that he created. The problem is they cannot love back. God cannot hate because everything that is created is loved because they share in being. God IS love. Everything created shares it's being from the creator. When the lines of the Old Testament where it says "God hates (fill-in-the-blank)" it's said analogically as in the form of spiritual abandonment.

God most certainly CAN hate. You've performed gross isegesis in changing the meaning of the word 'hate' in those passages. Here are just a few passages where your isegesis fails:


Prov. 6:16-19: There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.
Deut. 16:22: Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth. Does God practice 'spiritual abandonment' on haughty eyes, lying tongues, and hands that shed innocent blood? The plain contextual exegetical reading of the passage would leave a man to believe that God hates those things. Spiritual abandonment is merely one ASPECT of that hatred. But of course we are all called to be filled with love, and operate primarily on that directive. Love properly defined is self sacrifice. There is a time for love and and there is a time for hate.

Thanks for the discourse!:)

[runderwo]

I don't think society should endorse or promote same sex couples raising children.



it's my opinion that child rearing is best done in a traditional male-female monogamous family relationship.



My concern is that I do not think, for the purposes of adoption, that a gay couple should be regarded as an equally desirable child-rearing environment to a traditional hetero couple. I think there is an element in the gay marriage movement, that expects equal rights in adoption to flow automatically from such a societal change, and I don't want to see it.


There are a lot of opinions on this topic, none of them with much of a factual basis. (I happen to think we should examine empirical evidence such as school performance and mental health to determine whether adopted children of gay couples are as well-adjusted as adopted children of hetero couples.) My question is, why should the federal government be redistributing money for adoptions in the first place, no matter who the adoptive parents are?


My opinion is that when human biology/science allows two men to produce an offspring, then they will have a right to claim equal breeding rights as the traditional model.

Where does the notion of a breeding right, no matter how normative, include a right to other people's money?


This is discrimination against ALL family groups that are not traditional one male one female partnerships. Natural law demands male and female gametes for conception

Then you should be against adoption by any parents who are sterile, or who have had vasectomy or hysterectomy performed, or have entered menopause. You could include all individuals who have had reproductive capacity artificially reinstated by medical technology. And you should definitely be against test-tube babies and artificial insemination. After all, it's not natural for such parents to have children.


I believe that natural law therefore favors the same structure for child rearing.


Natural law favors mothers eating fathers, mothers abandoning weak children, and mothers having miscarriages due to the constraints of nature. Human society and technology is about transcending natural law, not kowtowing to it.


I also think the state should not be in the business of endorsing or promoting single motherhood/fatherhood.


Why should the state be in the business of using other people's money to promote any model of family structure?


What I find objectionable about the "gay agenda" is the apparent determination that not only should homosexual behavior be tolerated


It surprises you that people living in a free society demand that they not be treated as second class citizens when their behavior harms no one?


but that it should be admired and respected, and considered as "good" as traditional lifestyles.

First you must tell us why you think it is not as "good" as traditional lifestyles. I believe the answer would include that you do not wish to subsidize it. However, your goal of subsidizing those lifestyles that you approve of would be best accomplished through private donations rather than authorizing the government to steal from others on your behalf.


I don't like anybody demanding that I admire and respect them, and certainly not on the basis of their sexual shenanigans.

I believe you are extending some of your so-called friends' demands that you admire and respect them (a narcissistic quality hardly limited to gay people) to paint a broad brush over an entire population. You may also be allowing sample bias to creep into your perception because the only people you observe and categorize as gay are the ones that are clearly out of the closet... the quiet ones, that you might 'respect', would never give you reason to believe that they are gay, because to them such a revelation is a net loss in this society.

In my perception, the vast majority of people who identify as non-heterosexual just want to be left alone and not treated like second class citizens by the laws. Same goes with any population that enjoys a social and legal stigma for a harmless preference such as marijuana smokers.



For an historical reference that is now current news look at the societies of Europe and Russia and their upcoming financial disasters because they lack a population that will sustain their nations. Many countries now pay you to have children.


Do you believe gay people would turn straight if they enjoyed a healthier dose of discrimination? What makes you think creating children in of a sham relationship borne of fear and societal repression is a net gain to society over not having children at all due to a same-sex preference?

[DocGrimes]

"Though I personally find the act of homosexual copulation distasteful and immoral"

Why is that? Do you find the act of heterosexual copulation distasteful and immoral? I can understand saying the thought disgust you, that would be somewhat normal just as a gay man might find sleeping with a woman to be disgusting.

I don't understand why you would find two people expressing strong feelings for one another immoral.


While this totally misses the point of my post I will answer. The reason is simply based upon my faith and understanding of God's will. Yes, you are free to totally disagree with my understanding and that is fine with me.

And yes, I find heterosexual copulation distasteful and immoral as well, when outside of marriage. But then, in neither of these cases am I seeking anyone else's agreement in regards to my previous post, nor am I seeking to force you to agree with me.

My post was about the fact that while I hold these views personally I DO NOT want the government legislating them or forcing them on others with differing views.

In fact, if you will reread you will find that I am not opposed to the state giving 'marriage licenses' to gay couples.

The very idea of a gay marriage should no more be as matter of state than is a hetero marriage.

The gay marriage issue I think boils down to an issue of equal rights to contract with the state for tax benefits.

[leipo]

There are a lot of opinions on this topic, none of them with much of a factual basis. (I happen to think we should examine empirical evidence such as school performance and mental health to determine whether adopted children of gay couples are as well-adjusted as adopted children of hetero couples.)

Who cares about "school performance". Intentionally taking away a child's right to a father AND a mother is unacceptable.


Then you should be against adoption by any parents who are sterile, or who have had vasectomy or hysterectomy performed, or have entered menopause. You could include all individuals who have had reproductive capacity artificially reinstated by medical technology. And you should definitely be against test-tube babies and artificial insemination. After all, it's not natural for such parents to have children.

No, he shouldn't. It is natural for those parents to have children, since they both have or had the reproductive organs needed.

[SeanEdwards]

There are a lot of opinions on this topic, none of them with much of a factual basis. (I happen to think we should examine empirical evidence such as school performance and mental health to determine whether adopted children of gay couples are as well-adjusted as adopted children of hetero couples.) My question is, why should the federal government be redistributing money for adoptions in the first place, no matter who the adoptive parents are?


I'm only assuming the case of a child that becomes a ward of the state. When there is no private party responsible for the kid then the state does play a role in acting as a guardian for the child's welfare. That naturally must include decisions about placement with an adoptive family. I don't think this needs federal government involvement, but it does involve some kind of government, probably at the state level.



Then you should be against adoption by any parents who are sterile, or who have had vasectomy or hysterectomy performed, or have entered menopause. You could include all individuals who have had reproductive capacity artificially reinstated by medical technology. And you should definitely be against test-tube babies and artificial insemination. After all, it's not natural for such parents to have children.


No, that is not the case at all. I'm not concerned with any of that. I'm saying that the environment for raising children successfully is related to our reproductive biology. It doesn't matter whose genes are being used, but the social structure of the family should ideally have some influence upon children in that family so that they can develop 'normal' attitudes towards reproductive relationships.

It doesn't matter if Adam and Steve love their adopted kid, the kid is not learning the biological fact that if he wants to form a family of his own, there needs to be female involvement.

What we've ended up with this devaluation of traditional family structure, is a vast generation of single mothers and estranged fathers, and TV heroes have become the role models for a generation of fatherless boys. This is just more of the same.



Natural law favors mothers eating fathers, mothers abandoning weak children, and mothers having miscarriages due to the constraints of nature. Human society and technology is about transcending natural law, not kowtowing to it.


When you can transcend the biology then go for it, but we aren't there yet.



First you must tell us why you think it is not as "good" as traditional lifestyles. I believe the answer would include that you do not wish to subsidize it. However, your goal of subsidizing those lifestyles that you approve of would be best accomplished through private donations rather than authorizing the government to steal from others on your behalf.


I don't think I've talked about subsidizing anything. I'm talking about governmental policy towards adoption by non-traditional family groups. That is my only serious objection to gay marriage rights, because I see gay activists asserting that gay marriage implies equal treatment for the purposes of non-related adoption. I don't think it's an equally desirable child-rearing environment to a traditional family, and would prefer it if public policy reflected my opinion.



I believe you are extending some of your so-called friends' demands that you admire and respect them (a narcissistic quality hardly limited to gay people) to paint a broad brush over an entire population. You may also be allowing sample bias to creep into your perception because the only people you observe and categorize as gay are the ones that are clearly out of the closet... the quiet ones, that you might 'respect', would never give you reason to believe that they are gay, because to them such a revelation is a net loss in this society.


I really don't have a beef with gay people. I just think children, particularily when young, should ideally be exposed to a family environment that aids their development of attitudes towards reproduction that reflect the reality of their biology.



In my perception, the vast majority of people who identify as non-heterosexual just want to be left alone and not treated like second class citizens by the laws. Same goes with any population that enjoys a social and legal stigma for a harmless preference such as marijuana smokers.


I bet a state run adoption agency treats potheads like second class citizens too.



Do you believe gay people would turn straight if they enjoyed a healthier dose of discrimination? What makes you think creating children in of a sham relationship borne of fear and societal repression is a net gain to society over not having children at all due to a same-sex preference?

I don't think I'm being discriminatory. All I'm talking about is stranger adoption, and I'm basing my opinion whats in the best interest of children developing normal attitudes toward reproduction. Where the state has an interest, such as protecting a ward of the court, they should exercise judgment and recognize that Mr. Garrison, and Mr. Slave's house is not really an ideal placement opportunity.

[GayRPFan]

I really don't have a beef with gay people. I just think children, particularily when young, should ideally be exposed to a family environment that aids their development of attitudes towards reproduction that reflect the reality of their biology. .....

......I don't think I'm being discriminatory. All I'm talking about is stranger adoption, and I'm basing my opinion whats in the best interest of children developing normal attitudes toward reproduction. Where the state has an interest, such as protecting a ward of the court, they should exercise judgment and recognize that Mr. Garrison, and Mr. Slave's house is not really an ideal placement opportunity.

You have got to be kidding! You seriously think same-sex parents no matter the gender will affect the natural behavior of a heterosexual child? If that is true then, I can tell you with utmost certainty I was raised by heterosexuals and it never interfered with my nature and I bet most gay people would concur.
If you really followed through the logic, almost ALL gay people had heterosexual parents. They were raised in a thoroughly heterosexual "lifestyle", watched TV/movies and the overpowering abundance of heterosexual images, stereotypes and community that overwhelmingly portray positive images and is extremely hard to miss or ignore. Don't forget, many of my heroes were heterosexual, many gays were mentored by heterosexuals and many homosexuals had teachers who were heterosexual. In fact, the immense majority of people and the culture IS wholly heterocentric!
Sorry, the few less than 3% of the population or less who want to adopt kids are not going to influence these kids from what is their "reproductive" nature. If they are heterosexual they will grow up to be exactly that: HETEROSEXUAL!
What's this got to do Ron Paul? My only disagreement is his PERSONAL attitude toward my relationship with my mate. Everything, I have read says he "personally" does not like gay marriage. But, after reading this very long and I must admit very informed (most) people here have swayed me, that perhaps Ron Paul is more open toward me and I might be wrong in my initial assessment. But, hey, if being called a douchebag and/or troll resulted in sustaining this terrific intelligent thread then perhaps it was all worth it. I've been called worse to my face and survived it quite well, can't say the other guy did, he's deadmeat.

[SeanEdwards]

You have got to be kidding! You seriously think same-sex parents no matter the gender will affect the natural behavior of a heterosexual child?


I think the kid is being deprived of the opportunity to experience a biologically functional family life at an early developmental stage. All these family units deny children the opportunity to have a mother and father. I don't think that's a great outcome, and I don't think society should be forced to regard all these experimental ideas about child rearing as equally valid.

Does that deprivation influence behavior? Maybe. I think there's a lot of evidence to indicate that the disintegration of traditional notions of family life and child rearing have caused a lot of damage to society.



If that is true then, I can tell you with utmost certainty I was raised by heterosexuals and it never interfered with my nature and I bet most gay people would concur.

If you really followed through the logic, almost ALL gay people had heterosexual parents. They were raised in a thoroughly heterosexual "lifestyle", watched TV/movies and the overpowering abundance of heterosexual images, stereotypes and community that overwhelmingly portray positive images and is extremely hard to miss or ignore. Don't forget, many of my heroes were heterosexual, many gays were mentored by heterosexuals and many homosexuals had teachers who were heterosexual. In fact, the immense majority of people and the culture IS wholly heterocentric!
Sorry, the few less than 3% of the population or less who want to adopt kids are not going to influence these kids from what is their "reproductive" nature. If they are heterosexual they will grow up to be exactly that: HETEROSEXUAL!


I didn't say one word about gay parents turning their adopted kids gay, so why all this diatribe?

I'm talking, in essence, about the right of a child to know a mother and father. Clearly this is an ideal that can't always be reached, but that doesn't mean that every freakin child-rearing scenario that humans can devise is equally good for raising children.

[JMann]

"I don't think society should endorse or promote same sex couples raising children."

So you and your bitch shouldn't be able to raise children since you two have sex? This is the stupid logic of the idiot class. Gay people shouldn't be able to express their love for one another and get married, and since we won't let them get married 'sex couples' shouldn't raise children. Are you that stupid? Really?

"I didn't say one word about gay parents turning their adopted kids gay, so why all this diatribe?"

Most people that have any sense know people are born gay. People don't turn their kids gay. Geeezus f'n christ the ignorance is overwhelming.

"I'm talking, in essence, about the right of a child to know a mother and father."

Heterosexual couples as a group have done such a great job with their 50% divorce rate and fathers all over the world leaving their wives or just sleeping around on them with girls and guys. What difference does it make of the sex of the people raising a child? As long as the child is cared for and loved. I honestly can't believe that people can be this classless in this day and age. I guess it comes from your hateful parents that taught you how to be a asshole.

Even if a gay couple could turn someone gay (which is just plain ridiculous) what is wrong with that? I bet a lot of people expressing their hatred towards gays probably don't like black people either. Small minded people full of venom.

[Ron Paul Fan]

As I said before, we don't get our rights because we're gay or straight. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals, so every individual should be treated the same way. If a gay couple is deemed as fit parents and they want to adopt a kid, they should be allowed to. If a straight couple is deemed as fit parents and they want to adopt a kid, they should be allowed to. The race, gender, or sexual orientation of the adoptive parents shouldn't come into account. States probably have a minimum age requirement and that's ok. But what should count is if the parents can provide adequately for the child, a good living situation for the child, and the parents personal history. For instance, you probably wouldn't want a convicted pedophile adopting a kid. Not letting any person adopt a child if they are deemed as fit parents is undermining individual liberty.

[Politeia]

Actually in the State of Washington they had to pass a law so people couldn't discriminate because of sexual orientation. The bill would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, lending and employment.

I'm a little surprised to see this cited, as apparently a good thing, by someone who I assume would regard himself as a supporter of Ron Paul and the philosophy he represents.

I'm sorry, but this sort of "law" is purely socialist/totalitarian, and totally anti-libertarian. When Ron Paul, or any other libertarian, says that all people have the same rights, they are referring to the rights of life, liberty and property, not to the socialist "rights" to housing, lending, employment, food, medical care, or whatever is the latest demagoguery.

All true rights derive from one fundamental right: self-ownership. And, if you believe in the concept of "rights" at all, you must start with affirming that everyone has that right. The right of homoerotically-oriented people to practice their predilections, with other consenting adults, is a corollary of the right of free association, which naturally derives from the right of self-ownership.

However, the right of free association has two sides: (1) the right to freely associate with anyone you please, and (2) the right not to associate with anyone you don't wish to associate with. This Washington "law", and all others like it, directly violate (2). This is the "homosexual agenda" which people like myself, who affirm and support the right of the homoerotically-oriented to freely associate however they please with others who voluntarily wish to join them, object to. If homosexuals could limit their "demands" to their legitimate rights, they would have far fewer antagonists.

As for matters regarding "marriage", schooling of children, etc., as usual these can be solved rather easily by simply getting the government, i.e. force, out of them.

Always remember, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." (Thomas Jefferson) Why do people always think they can make a deal with the Devil and not get burned? Well, I guess it's necessary for the plot.

[DocGrimes]

I'm a little surprised to see this cited, as apparently a good thing, by someone who I assume would regard himself as a supporter of Ron Paul and the philosophy he represents.

I'm sorry, but this sort of "law" is purely socialist/totalitarian, and totally anti-libertarian. When Ron Paul, or any other libertarian, says that all people have the same rights, they are referring to the rights of life, liberty and property, not to the socialist "rights" to housing, lending, employment, food, medical care, or whatever is the latest demagoguery.


Agreed, it may not be nice and some will hate the idea of it but we as people should be free to trade, do business, or associate based upon our own criteria, even if that means someone may discriminate. It may not be good or right, but we should have to freedom to do so.

That is for individuals, the state is another matter. There is where equality of treatment is correct and right.

[SeanEdwards]

"I don't think society should endorse or promote same sex couples raising children."

So you and your bitch shouldn't be able to raise children since you two have sex? This is the stupid logic of the idiot class. Gay people shouldn't be able to express their love for one another and get married, and since we won't let them get married 'sex couples' shouldn't raise children. Are you that stupid? Really?

"I didn't say one word about gay parents turning their adopted kids gay, so why all this diatribe?"

Most people that have any sense know people are born gay. People don't turn their kids gay. Geeezus f'n christ the ignorance is overwhelming.

"I'm talking, in essence, about the right of a child to know a mother and father."

Heterosexual couples as a group have done such a great job with their 50% divorce rate and fathers all over the world leaving their wives or just sleeping around on them with girls and guys. What difference does it make of the sex of the people raising a child? As long as the child is cared for and loved. I honestly can't believe that people can be this classless in this day and age. I guess it comes from your hateful parents that taught you how to be a asshole.

Even if a gay couple could turn someone gay (which is just plain ridiculous) what is wrong with that? I bet a lot of people expressing their hatred towards gays probably don't like black people either. Small minded people full of venom.

:rolleyes:

[SeanEdwards]

Not letting any person adopt a child if they are deemed as fit parents is undermining individual liberty.

No. In the case of an child that is a ward of the court, the court's interest is in preserving the liberty of the child, not of adoptive parents. The state should act in the interests of the child, by attempting to place that child in a family environment that reflects the reality of their biology. Children, at a young age, should be exposed to life in a heterosexual monogamous family in order to give them a chance to develop their own interest in forming such a family when they are an adult.

[Bloody Holly]

Well, I don't think anybody agrees with him 100% on everything. For the record I do support gay marriage, but I actually prefers Paul's plan of taking government sanctioned marriage totally out of the game. Let it be a church and social issue.

agreed. This is why I like Ron Paul. He's an individual. He's not sexist, racist and doesn't believe the govt has any right to play favorites. People do but it's not a govt issue.

[Bloody Holly]

Yes, I agree he does support individual rights. But, unfortunately he personally opposes gay marriage. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks my 22+ monogamous relationship is viewed negatively because I love a man. Personally, loving someone has nothing to do with sex. Love is the primary foundation of humanity and same-sex love is nothing less or greater than different-sex love relationships. It all comes to down to love. Why one would not personally support S-S marriage is beyond me. At least, his personal views do not interfere with my individual rights, and that is a blessing. For this, I can at least, continue my support for Ron Paul.... albeit, with reservations.

I'm glad you can set that apart. Alot of candidates doing the socialism schtick are full of shit. Ron Paul will say, I'm personally against something but it's not for me to impose on you. I don't personally agree with certain things like I myself would not do something someone else does but I wouldn't tell them that because I don't do it that they shouldn't.