Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
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.
"Those who slumber on the path to tyranny, sink on the river to freedom." - Brett D.
"I am not attacking you Eric. I am stating historical fact. Leon Trotsky taught Leo Straus everything he knew about Communism. Leo Straus set up shop at the University of Chicago. There Straus mentored and educated the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Kristol the Elder. See? It is not an attack, it is a statement of historical fact." - Random RP Supporter Spreading Some Love
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.
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.
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
Ok now I see Rand's position was more nuanced that I originally thought. Thanks dusman and Occam's banana.
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.
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.
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.
An interesting question, perhaps he still lives in the past.
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-wa...ter-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?
Last edited by Zussman; 02-20-2021 at 10:57 AM.
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.
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 02-19-2021 at 11:46 AM.
“It is not true that all creeds and cultures are equally assimilable in a First World nation born of England, Christianity, and Western civilization. Race, faith, ethnicity and history leave genetic fingerprints no ‘proposition nation’ can erase." -- Pat Buchanan
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.
There is no spoon.
Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling
May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.
Last edited by Voluntarist; 03-22-2021 at 12:49 PM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
I could care less if gays get married. Government needs to stay out of marriage and leave it to the churches.
"Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."
Calvin Coolidge
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.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
If he's against gay marriage than that makes him awesome.
Thee (God) alone will we serve and from Thee alone will we seek help
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.
“It is not true that all creeds and cultures are equally assimilable in a First World nation born of England, Christianity, and Western civilization. Race, faith, ethnicity and history leave genetic fingerprints no ‘proposition nation’ can erase." -- Pat Buchanan
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.
Last edited by tebowlives; 02-23-2021 at 04:15 PM.
Connect With Us