PDA

View Full Version : Civil Liberties: Should Ron Paul discuss gay rights?




2012
05-10-2012, 09:38 PM
With Obama's recent and reluctant opinion on gay marriage, do you think Ron Paul should take a stand?
I respect the entire state's rights attitude of Obama, but why are the LGBT groups praising Obama for his new state's rights stance when Ron Paul has said *THE SAME THING* for....as long as I can remember? Why is there no LGBT love for Ron Paul, since Obama is getting praise for just pretending to take this new state's rights stance in the past few days?

Weston White
05-13-2012, 02:55 AM
Personally, I don’t think so. As that is purely a private choice and personal issue, and moreover is for states to address on their own. Additionally, is this not on par with advocating sodomy, which is largely illegal throughout the states (though presumably never enforced)?

This entire thing is a purely a paid for VNR political stunt (Video News Release).

So what is going to be next on their agenda? Lobbying for: a “Affirmative Sex Partner Act” to ensure that everybody gets to enjoy some “loving” on a regular basis; a “Total Bran Diet Act” to ensure that everybody remains regular; the “Bestiality Advocate Act” (or the “Baaw” Act), to ensure that humans and animals evolve as natural partners in order to meet the requirements of forthcoming internationalism?

Inny Binny
05-13-2012, 04:54 AM
Additionally, is this not on par with advocating sodomy, which is largely illegal throughout the states (though presumably never enforced)?

What on earth are you talking about?

odamn
05-13-2012, 05:38 AM
no

Sola_Fide
05-13-2012, 05:40 AM
No such thing as gay rights.

Liberty74
05-13-2012, 06:03 AM
Yes, Ron should address it if asked. He does not need to go out of his way though.

Ron believes that two people have the "right" to marry. It does not matter if they are straight or gay. Why? Because it's none of the government freaking business. If two adults want to enter into a "voluntary" contract, which is what marriage basically is, so be it. It's not your neighbor's business and it's not some politician's business what YOU do. Unlike Obama and Romney, Ron and many of us in here think three dimensional and it's hard for many sheep to grasp the concept of freedom/liberty because they have been forced into the false right left paradigm (Rep v. Dem).

Excellent article on why people have a right to marry. I know some want to throw this issue back at the state level but the U.S. Constitution overrides any state Constitution or law IMO.


There are an infinite number of rights that human beings have. Each individual has an inherent right as a human being to one’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as one doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s same right.

Also, there is this...


Regarding the right to marry, while the Bill of Rights does not mention that specifically, the Ninth Amendment does state that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Now I know we don't live in a perfect world and there are exceptions but we better start believing or acting like it or the tyrannical madness from both Reps and Dems won't stop.


***The Right To Marry*** (http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz44.1.html)

KMX
05-13-2012, 07:26 AM
No, we need to talk about the more importatnt things. Like over seas spending and jobs!!! Who cares about peoples personal business. Leave them alone!

Vessol
05-13-2012, 07:31 AM
No. It's a hot issue right now that will fade in a few weeks. He needs to focus on what he's always talked about.

Marriage should have nothing to do with the State. If he gets involved, he'll just be lambasted by both sides. Democrats will slam him because he is personally against it. And Republicans will slam him because he is not for legislating against it.

It's a lose-lose situation. Most Americans are so fucking dumb that they can't even think about anything outside of the State, stateless marriages would be such a foreign concept to the brainwashed dolts.

Voluntarist
05-13-2012, 07:32 AM
xxxxx

Cowlesy
05-13-2012, 07:33 AM
No. It is not in his wheelhouse, and won't make a dime's worth of difference if we don't fix the deficit/debt crises.

thoughtomator
05-13-2012, 08:38 AM
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? Anyone infected with this problem needs to do a thorough internal re-examination of their priorities and sense of proportion.

Republicanguy
05-13-2012, 08:38 AM
I remember when I saw that clip of of when that guy Sacha interviewed Ron some years ago in a spoof mockery, and he said "that guy's ***** to the blazes, he took his cloths off, let's get going. He's ***** as crazy he put a hit on me, he took his cloths off".

I found the clip amusing, because his reaction is like WTF thid guy dancing and just his expression when he looks at him doing so before Bruno drops his trousers!

I understand Ron was upset, but the reaction of what he said was a little over the top. He had his right to feel pissed off, just could of expressed it a little differently.

The interview via youtube, the only copy available, I remember a few years back there was another one. http://youtu.be/osHm-Mirz40

Krzysztof Lesiak
05-13-2012, 08:45 AM
RP supports traditional marriage personally but wants the decision left up to the states. He doesn't need to discuss it a great deal because it isn't the most important thing and it may alienate voters who like him for other reasons.

Republicanguy
05-13-2012, 09:05 AM
RP supports traditional marriage personally but wants the decision left up to the states. He doesn't need to discuss it a great deal because it isn't the most important thing and it may alienate voters who like him for other reasons.

Well yes, it will happen. There are a lot of fanatics about this subject. I don't believe in Marriage as that is a religious ceremony and I don't do god or religion. I think it is fine if people want to live with one another and it is a meaningful relationship as a family unit or gay couple or whatever. At the end of the day there will always be discrimination.

Brett85
05-13-2012, 01:29 PM
He's already spoken out against so called "gay marriage."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

Feeding the Abscess
05-13-2012, 01:36 PM
I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired. ...

There should be essentially no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage ...

If others who choose a different definition do not impose their standards on anyone else, they have a First Amendment right to their own definition and access to the courts to arbitrate any civil disputes. ...

It is typical of how government intervention in social issues serves no useful purpose. With a bit more tolerance and a lot less government involvement in our lives, this needless problem and emotionally charged debate could be easily avoided. ...

In economics, licensing is designed by the special interests to suppress competition. Licensing for social reasons reflects the intolerant person's desire to mold other people's behavior to their standard. Both depend on the illegitimate use of government force.

He talked about marriage during a Des Moines Register editorial interview:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-3Hb2v8ZXw

@44:30 mark, he reiterates the point from his book that I quoted. Ron's said a lot more than Obama has for marriage equality, yet Obama's praised for state's rights stance and Ron's a racist gay hater somehow.

And on Cavuto:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a19NV0_iOBk

awake
05-13-2012, 02:05 PM
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.

Weston White
05-13-2012, 03:27 PM
What on earth are you talking about?


Didnít your parents ever tell you about the birds and the bees, and even educated MDís?

ctiger2
05-13-2012, 04:21 PM
I didn't realize gay people have special rights.

Inny Binny
05-13-2012, 07:11 PM
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.


I didn't realize gay people have special rights.

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.


Didnít your parents ever tell you about the birds and the bees, and even educated MDís?

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.

heavenlyboy34
05-13-2012, 07:15 PM
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
05-13-2012, 07:53 PM
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
05-13-2012, 08:23 PM
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
05-15-2012, 10:28 PM
I'm so damn glad that the Party of NO exists today.

2012
05-15-2012, 10:32 PM
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
05-16-2012, 11:22 PM
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
05-21-2012, 10:07 AM
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
05-21-2012, 10:59 AM
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
05-21-2012, 11:28 AM
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
05-21-2012, 11:48 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
05-21-2012, 11:55 AM
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
05-21-2012, 12:06 PM
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
05-21-2012, 12:53 PM
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
05-21-2012, 01:10 PM
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
05-21-2012, 01:11 PM
Ron's already addressed this...

kuckfeynes
05-21-2012, 01:30 PM
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
05-21-2012, 01:35 PM
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
05-21-2012, 01:36 PM
..

Zach Vega
05-22-2012, 06:25 AM
He should focus on economics. Have you seen his budget? It's awesome.