Why does Rand Paul oppose gay marriage?

[Stannis]

I like Rand better than all of the other Republicans, but his opposition to gay marriage makes me hesitant to pull the trigger for him. Aren't libertarians supposed to be about getting govt out of people's lives? I would describe myself as a left-libertarian. Is this some political play to get the teavengelicals behind him or Paul's actual beliefs? I remember Ron said back in 2012 that he basically doesn't care if gay marriage is legalized, as long as its done by the states, a position that I quite liked.

[William Tell]

Rand called for getting government out of marriage. Do you disagree with him?

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

[Brett85]

Having the government recognize gay marriage and get itself involved even further into marriage than it already is would just get the government even more involved in people's personal lives. And no, Ron Paul never supported gay marriage either. Ron and Rand both take the position that is sort of a 3rd way, a third point on the triangle. They both believe that marriage is something that should be handled privately. They believe that marriage licenses should be abolished and that marriage shouldn't be defined by the government at all. Then the government would basically just recognize something similar to contracts or civil unions for both straight and gay couples.

[Stannis]

Government plays a larger role in marriage then many people realize, such as in tax credits and child custody laws. I agree the ideal solution is to get govt out of marriage, but I think we need to be realistic here and admit that won't happen in the foreseeable future. So the best solution is to treat out marriages equally.

[William Tell]

As best I can tell Rand and Ron have taken the exact same position. So why do you like Ron but not Rand on this issue when they are the same? Ron always was personally in favor of traditional marriage.

[Stannis]

I think its because Rand talks up the "moral" side of the argument more so than Ron, which makes me suspect this a political move rather than his actual beliefs.

[hells_unicorn]

Why is having the government recognize a non-procreative, filthy practice as being equal to what makes society possible so important to people? Seriously, you're going to vote for some war-mongering democrat who wants to rob you blind because of this?

[William Tell]

I think its because Rand talks up the "moral" side of the argument more so than Ron, which makes me suspect this a political move rather than his actual beliefs.

Really? I thought it was the opposite. I have old flyers from Ron's 2012 campaign boasting about defending traditional marriage. I actually think of Ron being more personally social conservative than Rand if anything. Which is interesting, since I am more on the traditional side.

So why do you and I view Ron so differently, but both prefer his rhetoric/campaign style?

Ultimately their positions are exactly the same from a political perspective, they both want government out of the licensing business, especially the feds. And think if anything it should be dealt with on the local/state level either way.

[Stannis]

@hells_unicorn See this is where you start to lose me. I am attracted to libertarianism because it has the attitude of "Who am I to judge?" Isnt the morality police mentality more suited to the SJWs on the left and evangelicals on the right?


@William. Didnt Ron express some sort of "let the states decide" during the debates?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3PXANu7mUc

"Others have no right to impose their marriage standards on me"

[Brett85]

@hells_unicorn See this is where you start to lose me. I am attracted to libertarianism because it has the attitude of "Who am I to judge?" Isnt the morality police mentality more suited to the SJWs on the left and evangelicals on the right?

Why would libertarianism have that attitude? There are a lot of Christian conservatives who are libertarians politically and have personally social conservative views. But they just don't believe in forcing their views on others. That's why Ron and Rand both take the position of getting the government out of marriage, which is the only position that doesn't involve government force.

[hells_unicorn]

@hells_unicorn See this is where you start to lose me. I am attracted to libertarianism because it has the attitude of "Who am I to judge?" Isnt the morality police mentality more suited to the SJWs on the left and evangelicals on the right?

You didn't answer my question, and I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about the basic mechanics of nature. What profit does society or any individual within it (apart from the people who engage in the practice) gain from treating a non-productive act (that also usually involves the spread of disease) with a productive one?

Societies survive and thrive because they produce future generations. Acts of sodomy, as a matter of fact, can't accomplish this. So again, why is this so important?

[CPUd]

@hells_unicorn See this is where you start to lose me. I am attracted to libertarianism because it has the attitude of "Who am I to judge?" Isnt the morality police mentality more suited to the SJWs on the left and evangelicals on the right?

The difference is that Rand would also oppose a federal ban on gay marriage, because it violates the 10th Amendment.

[Stannis]

I'm talking about the basic mechanics of nature. What profit does society or any individual within it (apart from the people who engage in the practice) gain from treating a non-productive act (that also usually involves the spread of disease) with a productive one?


You could use this argument for basically anything that is "non productive." and it becomes increasingly clear that it is absurd. I guess we should ban tobacco, marijuana, eating fast food, shaking hands (spreads diseases), etc because they are "non productive?" Isn't this the communist position?

[William Tell]

@William. Didnt Ron express some sort of "let the states decide" during the debates?
Yes, just exactly like Rand when he says he doesn't want his marriage or guns registered in Washington. They are the same policy wise.

[Christian Liberty]

Ron's argument in that video is really weak.

[William Tell]

You could use this argument for basically anything that is "non productive." and it becomes increasingly clear that it is absurd. I guess we should ban tobacco, marijuana, eating fast food, shaking hands (spreads diseases), etc because they are "non productive?" Isn't this the communist position?

No, you can dislike something without wanting it banned. I can't imagine smoking something, but I don't want tobacco banned. The communist position is to make us pay for and support things we disagree with. In a free country we can like and dislike whatever.

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=59&v=4rnUOt8AK4U

[hells_unicorn]

You could use this argument for basically anything that is "non productive." and it becomes increasingly clear that it is absurd. I guess we should ban tobacco, marijuana, eating fast food, shaking hands (spreads diseases), etc because they are "non productive?" Isn't this the communist position?

Who said anything about banning anything? You are asking the government to subsidize something with its approval, and I have asked you why. Are you capable of answering a simple question or are you going to continue evading it?

[Stannis]

No, you can dislike something without wanting it banned. I can't imagine smoking something, but I don't want tobacco banned. The communist position is to make us pay for and support things we disagree with. In a free country we can like and dislike whatever.

Hells_unicorn's tone in the post implies that he wants gay marriage to be banned.

[William Tell]

Hells_unicorn's tone in the post implies that he wants gay marriage to be banned.

No it doesn't.

[Stannis]

Who said anything about banning anything? You are asking the government to subsidize something with its approval, and I have asked you why. Are you capable of answering a simple question or are you going to continue evading it?

What on earth are you talking about? You expect me to treat your question of "Why is having the government recognize a non-procreative, filthy practice as being equal to what makes society possible so important to people?" as being a legitimate question? Seems more like a fire-and-brimstone rhetorical device than something anyone should take seriously.

[Christian Liberty]

No it doesn't.

I do. Homosexual behavior is disgusting and should be suppressed (especially when it is flagrant and open) in any civilized place.

i'm pretty sure HU happns to believe this as well although he didn't actually say so in this thread :p

[William Tell]

CL, this thread is about Ron and Rand's positions.

[hells_unicorn]

What on earth are you talking about? You expect me to treat your question of "Why is having the government recognize a non-procreative, filthy practice as being equal to what makes society possible so important to people?" as being a legitimate question? Seems more like a fire-and-brimstone rhetorical device than something anyone should take seriously.

What's fire-and-brimstone about it? The words "God", "Hell", "Judgment" and most of the other biblical terms were not used at any point by me in this conversation. I usually use the word sodomy because this website has a policy regarding the "F" word, and because I don't buy into the pseudo-science behind "homosexuality" so I don't usually employ that term.

As far as using the word filthy (if this is what bothers you so much), I don't think I need to get into what usually goes on in these persons' bedrooms, but the word is befitting the entire concept of mistaking a sewer with a playground. I'm not playing rhetorical games here, I'm asking you a simple question, and if my direct language is a little too harsh for you, the problem here is not with my logic, but with yours.

If you think that the government smiling down on buggery is more important than whether or not we bomb a country, destroy our own economy, and are run by criminals, your priorities are going to be questioned by others. You can either cry about it or deal with it. Your choice.

[Brett85]

Hells_unicorn's tone in the post implies that he wants gay marriage to be banned.

Gay marriage never has been banned. Banning something implies that there's some sort of criminal penalty for engaging in that particular activity. There's never been any criminal penalty for a gay couple to have their own private marriage ceremony.

[hells_unicorn]

I do. Homosexual behavior is disgusting and should be suppressed (especially when it is flagrant and open) in any civilized place.

i'm pretty sure HU happns to believe this as well although he didn't actually say so in this thread :p

I tend to approach debates in the various forums here based on the purpose of each and the decorum that usually goes with it. Furthermore, making appeals to the bible while in discussion with atheists, libertines, and other various secular sectarians is usually a waste of time, so I will generally resort to "light of nature" arguments, though sadly even these arguments are deemed superstitious by "rational" people. What is one to do?

[cindy25]

it's hard when the base in Iowa is still so crazy. it will change as the old generation dies off.

[Southron]

Why do you care about his opinion on homosexual marriage? He has generally taken a decentralist position on the issue.

The fact is that homosexual marriage has been forced on the States and the people. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

[Christian Liberty]

I tend to approach debates in the various forums here based on the purpose of each and the decorum that usually goes with it. Furthermore, making appeals to the bible while in discussion with atheists, libertines, and other various secular sectarians is usually a waste of time, so I will generally resort to "light of nature" arguments, though sadly even these arguments are deemed superstitious by "rational" people. What is one to do?

Yeah, that's valid and you're right that its really not a great situation.

[Spikender]

Government plays a larger role in marriage then many people realize, such as in tax credits and child custody laws. I agree the ideal solution is to get govt out of marriage, but I think we need to be realistic here and admit that won't happen in the foreseeable future. So the best solution is to treat out marriages equally.

We all realize the role Government plays in marriage on this website. Trust me, it's been discussed since its inception and far before this website existed. I'm tired of hearing "we need to be realistic". I guess we need to be realistic and realize that liberty will never see the light of day in America and just let this country police the world, lock up people for all sorts of arbitrary reasons, and listen to bloviators like Obama or Trump rather than seek out people who tell the truth.

We should always work toward our goals with baby steps. That's what the Statists and Marxists do. Shave off the Government's role in marriage piece by piece until there's nothing left.

[Sola_Fide]

I like Rand better than all of the other Republicans, but his opposition to gay marriage makes me hesitant to pull the trigger for him. Aren't libertarians supposed to be about getting govt out of people's lives? I would describe myself as a left-libertarian. Is this some political play to get the teavengelicals behind him or Paul's actual beliefs? I remember Ron said back in 2012 that he basically doesn't care if gay marriage is legalized, as long as its done by the states, a position that I quite liked.

If this is the issue that is a deal breaker for you, then it's probably best for you to go campaign for Bernie Sanders.

[dusman]

I like Rand better than all of the other Republicans, but his opposition to gay marriage makes me hesitant to pull the trigger for him. Aren't libertarians supposed to be about getting govt out of people's lives? I would describe myself as a left-libertarian. Is this some political play to get the teavengelicals behind him or Paul's actual beliefs? I remember Ron said back in 2012 that he basically doesn't care if gay marriage is legalized, as long as its done by the states, a position that I quite liked.

I think you all need to tone down how you engage new users and guide them to what Rand's position is, instead of being combative, critical and/or condescending to them for where they are in their journey toward libertarian thought. I found this threat quite irritating and the interaction with Stannis pretty damn rude.

Stannis.. sorry.

Rand's position on gay marriage has been that government should get out of marriage all together. His position is that it should be treated as any contract, where two people are free from government regulation and definition all together. It sounds like you may have gotten a different impression?

Often times the position of allowing states to decide is merely a means to an end, though also grounded in 9th and 10th Amendment arguments. By allowing states to decide, it can then more quickly become just an antiquated part of history.

In my opinion, there should be no benefit given by government for being married or not married. That is really only an issue with the present tax system.

[Occam's Banana]

Government plays a larger role in marriage then many people realize, such as in tax credits and child custody laws.

People around here realize that fact perfectly well.

That is precisely why so many of us oppose ANY government sponsorship of marriage - including any expansion of the already-existing government-marriage franchise.


I agree the ideal solution is to get govt out of marriage, but I think we need to be realistic here and admit that won't happen in the foreseeable future. So the best solution is to treat out marriages equally.

It is unjust and unfair for the state to grant special privileges to some particular group of people (such as straight marrieds). But the ONLY solution to this injustice and unfairness is to stop granting those special privileges to anyone - it is NOT to increase the number of people to whom such special privileges will be granted. This is why "equality" is such an utterly bogus excuse in this context. Expanding government sponsorship of marriage to include gays does NOT increase "equality" - it merely expands the number of people who enjoy the special privileges of state-sponsored marriage to the exclusion and/or expense of others (such as single people and unmarried couples, regardless of whether they are straight or gay).

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that the "ideal" solution is to get government out of marriage altogether - but since that "won't happen in the forseeable future," the "best" solution is actually to get the government even more into marriage than it was before. (And this is especially ridiculous given that it will make the "ideal" solution of getting the government out of marriage completely even more difficult and "unforseeable" than it already was.) It's like saying that the "ideal" solution to the problem of government-sponsored welfare programs is to get the government out of welfare completely - but since that isn't going to happen right away, we should get even more people on welfare (in the name of "equality"). That is just completely absurd.

Furthermore, the whole "we need to be realistic here and admit [it] won't happen in the forseeable future" thing is an unsupportable and utterly poisonous attitude to adopt. If the people who supported the legalization of marijuana had been "realistic" back in the 1980s (during the height of the "Just Say No" drug war hysteria) - that is, if they had decided that there was no point in staunchly advocating for the legalization of pot just because it wasn't going to happen in the "forseeable future" - then we wouldn't be seeing the successful liberalization of pot laws that is occurring today.

[Stannis]

Ok now I see Rand's position was more nuanced that I originally thought. Thanks dusman and Occam's banana.

[WeTheVigilant]

What's fire-and-brimstone about it? The words "God", "Hell", "Judgment" and most of the other biblical terms were not used at any point by me in this conversation. I usually use the word sodomy because this website has a policy regarding the "F" word, and because I don't buy into the pseudo-science behind "homosexuality" so I don't usually employ that term.

As far as using the word filthy (if this is what bothers you so much), I don't think I need to get into what usually goes on in these persons' bedrooms, but the word is befitting the entire concept of mistaking a sewer with a playground. I'm not playing rhetorical games here, I'm asking you a simple question, and if my direct language is a little too harsh for you, the problem here is not with my logic, but with yours.

If you think that the government smiling down on buggery is more important than whether or not we bomb a country, destroy our own economy, and are run by criminals, your priorities are going to be questioned by others. You can either cry about it or deal with it. Your choice.

This is a very good post.

Hey, if you'd like to come onto my podcast to talk about important issues sometime, email me at wethevigilant@gmail.com - I'd love to help give a platform to knowledgeable people.

That goes for anyone reading this post as well.

[euphemia]

The fact is that homosexual marriage has been forced on the States and the people. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Yes. Especially taking into consideration that Christians, particularly, are being penalized for choosing not to violate the tenets of their faith traditions.

[Millennial Conservatarian]

I'm gay and frankly could care less about Rand's position on gay marriage. single issue voting is ridiculous, and Rand Paul is not exactly out there picketing against gay rights. I think he is playing the center (wisely) because he knows the GOP base still opposes gay marriage but if he comes out all Huckabee on us it will destroy his electability. He's walking a thin line but he's at least able to come off as "acceptable" to independents and some liberals who support gay marriage but also aren't single-issue voters.

[Ayn Freidman]

The government shouldn't have anything to do with the process of marriage but I do believe that states have the right to say who you can and can't marry. While I support legalization of same sex marriage, I do not support the supreme court decision to make gay marriage a federal law. Where in the constitution does it say that gays can get married? Where does it say that only men and women can get married? A federal ban or legalization shouldn't be possible without an amendment to the constitution.

[GabrielleTucker]

An interesting question, perhaps he still lives in the past.

[Zussman]

Doesn't he support a gay relationship? Very strange, I've never heard of it. But maybe it's his opinion, but I still don't understand. By the way, I have read a lot of different books and literature about love relationships between people. I also really liked the article about parting on this site https://breakupangels.com/why-man-want-to-come-back-after-a-breakup/ . Well, the fact that he does not support a gay relationship, I think it is absurd, because time is moving forward, and you need to already understand that the old days are over and now everything is different. What do you think? :)

[Anti Federalist]

I like Rand better than all of the other Republicans, but his opposition to gay marriage makes me hesitant to pull the trigger for him. Aren't libertarians supposed to be about getting govt out of people's lives? I would describe myself as a left-libertarian. Is this some political play to get the teavengelicals behind him or Paul's actual beliefs? I remember Ron said back in 2012 that he basically doesn't care if gay marriage is legalized, as long as its done by the states, a position that I quite liked.

In hindsight, maybe because he sussed out that "gay marriage" was just a canard, a false flag stepping stone used to push the weirdosexual agenda even further into the flabby body politic of dying AmeriKa so that now we have mentally ill fat men in dresses making life and death health decisions like petty tyrants.

And you can't say a thing about it, or you're a homophobic shitlord.

https://i.imgur.com/pPMQGx9.png

[Ender]

The government shouldn't have anything to do with the process of marriage but I do believe that states have the right to say who you can and can't marry. While I support legalization of same sex marriage, I do not support the supreme court decision to make gay marriage a federal law. Where in the constitution does it say that gays can get married? Where does it say that only men and women can get married? A federal ban or legalization shouldn't be possible without an amendment to the constitution.

Government, Fed OR State, has no right to be involved in marriage. The whole license thing was created to keep people from inter-racial marriage & is totally a racist POS.

What consenting adults do, should be between them, & no one else- they should just not have the power to force their particular way of life on someone else.

[Invisible Man]

An interesting question, perhaps he still lives in the past.


There's some irony in making this particular statement in a post in which you revive a 6 year old thread.

[acptulsa]

An interesting question, perhaps he still lives in the past.

Such insight. Just what one might expect from a purveyor of clickbait spam...


I didn't even know this could happen. Before the pandemic, I had my own small business and I had an income, a job, everything suited me. But when the pandemic hit, things got bad. Sales dropped and in the end I went bankrupt. I fell into depression, I did not know what to do, how to continue to live. I even googled my problem and came across this site one day san diego bankruptcy lawyer (https://www.bankruptcyattorneys.org). It turns out that there is a company that helps bankrupts like me. And she helped me a lot, I got out of depression, and even found a good lawyer who helped me and I resolved many issues with the bank from which I took a loan.


Wow, I didn't even know that. My friend worked for the FBI for a long time and he told me how difficult this work is. By the way last month, his director has avoided a 5-year director disqualification! As far as I know, they wanted to disqualify him for inappropriate behavior but the specialists from this company https://ndandp.co.uk/director-disqualification (https://ndandp.co.uk/director-disqualification) literally saved him. This story was even written in the newspapers and shown on the news so you may have already heard about this story.

[Voluntarist]

Per registered decision (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?541228-Bryan-does-this-site-reject-traditional-morality-and-Christian-teachings&p=6888638&viewfull=1#post6888638), member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?33245-TheTexan) (respect his authoritah (https://youtu.be/PaKjRMMU9HI)) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?541228-Bryan-does-this-site-reject-traditional-morality-and-Christian-teachings&p=6888539&viewfull=1#post6888539)

May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.

[Anti Globalist]

I could care less if gays get married. Government needs to stay out of marriage and leave it to the churches.

[jmdrake]

In hindsight, maybe because he sussed out that "gay marriage" was just a canard, a false flag stepping stone used to push the weirdosexual agenda even further into the flabby body politic of dying AmeriKa so that now we have mentally ill fat men in dresses making life and death health decisions like petty tyrants.

And you can't say a thing about it, or you're a homophobic $#@!lord.

https://i.imgur.com/pPMQGx9.png

One day it's gay marriage. The next it's courts taking away a father's right to protect his son from an insane mother who's trying to force the boy to be a girl (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/08/14/heartbreak-judge-puts-james-younger-back-under-mothers-control-while-ordering-father-to-pay-for-it-n792339).

[orafi]

If he's against gay marriage than that makes him awesome.

[Sammy]

Based Rand Paul:up:

[tebowlives]

If gay marriage is the litmus test on whether to vote for someone or not, then that person is lost and has no clue on what is important.

[Anti Federalist]

If gay marriage is the litmus test on whether to vote for someone or not, then that person is lost and has no clue on what is important.

"Gay Marriage" has nothing to do with the libertarian leanings it's name would suggest.

It is (was) a culture cudgel designed to silence opposition to the next waves of weirdosexualism now coming down the pike, culminating in two things: the normalization of pre pubescent pedophilia and "snuff" sex, whether filmed or carried out in real life.

I say "was" because that battle is over, chalked up as another decisive win for the Marxist mob.

[tebowlives]

"Gay Marriage" has nothing to do with the libertarian leanings it's name would suggest.

It is (was) a culture cudgel designed to silence opposition to the next waves of weirdosexualism now coming down the pike, culminating in two things: the normalization of pre pubescent pedophilia and "snuff" sex, whether filmed or carried out in real life.

I say "was" because that battle is over, chalked up as another decisive win for the Marxist mob.I never understood the term Gay Marriage. I can marry a guy and not be gay. A MINO, Married in Name Only. Two straight guys who want to remain single in real life. One has a real good retirement package, the other has a real good medical coverage. Makes sense to combine forces. Government marriage is about money.