Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: Why does Rand Paul oppose gay marriage?

  1. #1

    Default Why does Rand Paul oppose gay marriage?

    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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

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

    http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-ga...supreme-court/
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  4. #3

    Default

    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.

  5. #4

    Default

    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.

  6. #5

    Default

    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.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  7. #6

    Default

    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.

  8. #7

    Default

    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?

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    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.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  10. #9

    Default

    @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?



    "Others have no right to impose their marriage standards on me"
    Last edited by Stannis; 10-02-2015 at 09:16 PM.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    @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.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    @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?

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    @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.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    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?

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post

    @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.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  16. #15

    Default

    Ron's argument in that video is really weak.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    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.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  18. #17

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    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?

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    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.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    Hells_unicorn's tone in the post implies that he wants gay marriage to be banned.
    No it doesn't.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    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.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    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
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  24. #23

    Default

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

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    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.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    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.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    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
    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?

  28. #27

    Default

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

  29. #28

    Default

    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.
    Equality is a false god.

    Armatissimi e Liberissimi

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    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.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stannis View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister Miriam Godwinson View Post
    We Must Dissent.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •