PDA

View Full Version : Civil Liberties: Why are ron paul and rand paul against gay marriage?




Jarg
05-20-2012, 06:39 PM
Not gay my self but wondering if they are pro freedom why not allow people to marry of same sex? Marriage is alot more than one religions view on it and last time i checked people ignore and are against the slavery stuff in bible that are Christians why cant they do same for same sex marriage. The bible has alot of horrible stuff people dont agree with today.

This video makes good point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R8yhUaMc88&feature=plcp

if he rand really is a libertarian he should not be anti gay's marrying... thats big government or does paul only like freedom when his benefits his believes?

Drex
05-20-2012, 06:51 PM
I thought Ron let it up to the states' to decide?

specsaregood
05-20-2012, 06:56 PM
neither of them think that the govt should be able to prevent gay couples from marrying. in fact they both want govt completely out of the marriage business.

ie: they are both again govt marriage.

Voluntary Man
05-20-2012, 07:18 PM
don't know. speaking for myself, though, if you're gay, i couldn't care less. it's really none of my business, and that's the way i like it.

if you want to be married to your old navy buddy, your golden retriever, or your ficus, i have no idea why i should care.

for that matter, if you want to have 3 wives or 30 husbands, the more the merrier.

so let's all just agree to get the government out of each other's lives, to the fullest extent possible.

of course, the fact that i support the extra-legal union of your choice shouldn't be interpreted to mean that's the type of union i would accept for myself or wish for my children. you don't need my approval, and i don't need yours.

the only thing i need from you is an acknowledgment that my rights are not contingent upon your approval, and vice versa.

if what you really crave is "acceptance," join a support group.

i find the idea of Wicca personally nauseating. however, if you want to run through the woods naked, howling at the moon, I'm the last person who'd even think of stopping you. just stay off of my property; that's all i ask.

are we good?

Sola_Fide
05-20-2012, 07:51 PM
Why does your question assume that state sanctioning and licensing is the default and correct position?

Also, the "slavery" of the Bible was not like the chattel slavery of Africans. It was debt slavery, and it is not prescribed at all in Scripture. Your question makes it sound like the Bible commands people to be slave-owners or something.

There are those passages in the New Testament which speak of slavery, and it is dealt with in a way which would gradually bring about its end. You have to remember that nearly half the Roman world was in some kind of servitude. Now if you say that Christianity can't speak to the culture of its day, then I disagree with you. In fact, Jesus and the apostles did just that. They spoke to the actual culture of the day. I think it is a good thing that the Bible can do this.

It isn't important to me that Christianity did not deal with Roman servitude in revolutionary terms. Christianity is not a social order.....it's not a political party, and its not a statement of political force (although its been twisted like that in history). Christianity is a spiritual war. In Christianity, it is more important that a person who is enslaved in the physical world to be free in the spiritual world. This is why the apostles did not deal with Roman servitude in revolutionary terms. Although, if you read the book of Philemon (its just a couple of pages), it will show you the Christian blueprint for manumission.

Jarg
05-20-2012, 07:52 PM
neither of them think that the govt should be able to prevent gay couples from marrying. in fact they both want govt completely out of the marriage business.

ie: they are both again govt marriage.
Then why is rand calling Obama gay for supporting it when he does. Obama leaves to states just like him so there same...

William R
05-20-2012, 07:58 PM
A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other



http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

PierzStyx
05-20-2012, 08:03 PM
A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other



http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html


This is a fantatsic article.

specsaregood
05-20-2012, 08:05 PM
Then why is rand calling Obama gay for supporting it when he does. Obama leaves to states just like him so there same...

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply; but for the hell of it: because Rand didn't call Obama gay?

LibertyEagle
05-20-2012, 08:07 PM
Then why is rand calling Obama gay for supporting it when he does. Obama leaves to states just like him so there same...

He didn't say that. He was remarking about the big media hoopla about Obama endorsing gay marriage, because Obama had been all about using big government force on this issue.

Galileo Galilei
05-20-2012, 08:07 PM
Not gay my self but wondering if they are pro freedom why not allow people to marry of same sex? Marriage is alot more than one religions view on it and last time i checked people ignore and are against the slavery stuff in bible that are Christians why cant they do same for same sex marriage. The bible has alot of horrible stuff people dont agree with today.

This video makes good point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R8yhUaMc88&feature=plcp

if he rand really is a libertarian he should not be anti gay's marrying... thats big government or does paul only like freedom when his benefits his believes?

anyone can get married. But no one can force someone else to recognize a marriage.

Assassinrentao
05-21-2012, 10:11 AM
anyone can get married. But no one can force someone else to recognize a marriage.

That doesn't make any sense because gay rights are so that individuals get their homosexual marriage recognized.

mczerone
05-21-2012, 10:21 AM
That doesn't make any sense because gay rights are so that individuals get their homosexual marriage recognized.

For the record, I have GG on ignore, but he's right here. No individual should have to recognize a marriage. But when the state is giving special privilege (which they shouldn't be doing in the first place) then they should be bound to give that privilege blind to the participants involved.

Recognition by the state of gay marriage to be on par with straight marriage is a sensible position. But most of us would go further and say that the state shouldn't be recognizing ANY contracts between peaceful people as being deserved of special privilege over any other contract. So they shouldn't be forcing hospitals, etc., to recognize marriage contracts at all, whether the participants are gay or straight, or from the same or different races/ethnicities/creeds. If an Albanian hospital wishes to only recognize Albanian spouses as deserving to visit their sick spouses, who are we to FORCE them to do so?

Of course I do support using peaceful means to get private actors to "play fair" - boycotts, propaganda, and market competition are are legitimate means to affect social change. The force of the govt masks the fact the you're basically pointing a gun at people and saying "do what I want" - and that's not a very humane, effective, or efficient way of instituting change in the world.

Assassinrentao
05-21-2012, 10:35 AM
For the record, I have GG on ignore, but he's right here. No individual should have to recognize a marriage. But when the state is giving special privilege (which they shouldn't be doing in the first place) then they should be bound to give that privilege blind to the participants involved.

Recognition by the state of gay marriage to be on par with straight marriage is a sensible position. But most of us would go further and say that the state shouldn't be recognizing ANY contracts between peaceful people as being deserved of special privilege over any other contract. So they shouldn't be forcing hospitals, etc., to recognize marriage contracts at all, whether the participants are gay or straight, or from the same or different races/ethnicities/creeds. If an Albanian hospital wishes to only recognize Albanian spouses as deserving to visit their sick spouses, who are we to FORCE them to do so?

Of course I do support using peaceful means to get private actors to "play fair" - boycotts, propaganda, and market competition are are legitimate means to affect social change. The force of the govt masks the fact the you're basically pointing a gun at people and saying "do what I want" - and that's not a very humane, effective, or efficient way of instituting change in the world.

No individual should recognize a marriage ,under the constitutional republic we live in, but that's not reality when marriage does get special privileges for heterosexual marriages and not homosexual ones. Justice delayed is justice denied, and waiting for the states to agree with marriage equality isn't as effective if it's taking decades for such uncivil laws to be overturned.

Also, that's an extreme hyperbole to say that the federal government "pointing a gun to our heads" to accept gay marriage when it's not even such an extreme idea to suggest in our society. If that was the case, couldn't I say that the federal government was "pointing a gun to our heads" by forcing the states to end slavery, end racial discrimination and to pay income tax?

It's just common sense.

presence
05-21-2012, 10:50 AM
Marriage is a spiritual union between two individuals. Through creative legislation and a traditional conservative desire to socially engineer society, it has evolved into a legal contract, where groups of individuals who are married are then given entitlements by the government and this is done to promote "mom/dad/kids households"; the logical and "desirable" outcome of marriage . Ron doesn't believe in entitlements or social engineering, and he doesn't like government breaking people into groups. He believes in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". He wants us equal, as individuals, in the eyes of the government. He wants individuals free to marry whoever they choose, and for the marriages to be recognized by whichever spiritual advisor or church chooses to do so; rather than state government. When rand said, "Obama's views on marriage couldn't get any gayer" he was implying they couldn't be any more aligned with the the LGBT lobby, who want marriage "legalized" for the LGBT community because it grants them entitlements which were designed to encourage / social engineer "mom&dad two-parent traditional homes". The liberty perspective; the liberty lobby if you will, wants government OUT of marriage, no state licensing or recognition of marriage, no entitlements for anyone (whether part of the "married" group or not), and no attempts at using government to socially engineer society.

Personally; the wife and I, we'll soon be 10 years since the first kiss of what has become a spiritual marriage and a family. Our happy "marriage" has not been state sanctioned or even recognized by any spiritual authority; we jumped over a broom stick about 6 years ago; the dog witnessed: On that side was her and I; on this side its us.

presence

mczerone
05-21-2012, 11:03 AM
No individual should recognize a marriage ,under the constitutional republic we live in, but that's not reality when marriage does get special privileges for heterosexual marriages and not homosexual ones. Justice delayed is justice denied, and waiting for the states to agree with marriage equality isn't as effective if it's taking decades for such uncivil laws to be overturned.

Also, that's an extreme hyperbole to say that the federal government "pointing a gun to our heads" to accept gay marriage when it's not even such an extreme idea to suggest in our society. If that was the case, couldn't I say that the federal government was "pointing a gun to our heads" by forcing the states to end slavery, end racial discrimination and to pay income tax?

It's just common sense.

The federal govt is indeed holding a gun to all of our heads on all of those issues. It's not hyperbole, it's fact that's attenuated through mass obedience.

To counter your "justice delayed is justice denied" quote, how about "justice rectified through unjust means is just redistributing injustice?"

Look at countries that didn't force the end of slavery: slavery ended through private, peaceful means and there wasn't a 100 year morass of racial injustice as there was here where slavery was ended by the point of a gun. Imagine the continued hatred and resentment of LGBTs if the federal govt comes in from on high and tells people who (irrationally and as bigots) don't want to go along with such a thing. They'll foment hatred against "the gay agenda" and clandestinely organize to dig in their heels against change, keeping their discriminatory beliefs just below the surface while outwardly being patronized by the very people they seek to marginalize.

Imagine instead if we just go about our business, promote gay marriage as something we support as individuals, and bigotry something we won't tolerate among our cohorts. The old bigots will either peacefully and cordially change their minds after being convinced that it's not so bad, or they'll go to their graves quietly holding onto their biases. They won't be out conspiring against gays and the govt that forced them to "accept" them, they'll instead be dusty remnants to times long past who were too stupid to tolerate and adapt to the evolution going on around them. They would be "out" as bigots, and we would be free to ignore them in the marketplace, in our social circles, and in our daily lives.

And are you denying that if you said "I'm not paying taxes" there wouldn't be letters threatening you, turning into cages to hold you, turning into raids to capture you, turning into deadly force to subdue you if your remained vigilant that you did non need to obey any of the chain of orders?

As I said in the other thread, "common sense" is just shorthand for admitting that you haven't analyzed the conclusions you've stated. "common sense" could have been used to say "slavery can't be ended; who'll pick the cotton?" It's a deep line of reasoning that concludes "people should not be owned, if people need cotton picked, it will be done peacefully."

Galileo Galilei
05-22-2012, 02:32 PM
That doesn't make any sense because gay rights are so that individuals get their homosexual marriage recognized.

It makes a lot of sense. The far left wants to force people to recognize gay marriage.