15 votes

Rand Paul gay marriage comments

I have considered myself an independent most of my life. I despise the two party system with a passion. I was first drawn to the libertarian movement based based on my personal belief that the government had NO right telling someone how to live their lives. I love Doctor Paul and believe he embodies that belief to the tee. I do not understand why Rand would make such a comment about about gay marriage.

The libertarian viewpoint is that the federal government should stay out of marriages completely! It should be an individuals choice to marry whoever they want regardless of others viewpoints. I am not gay personally but have many friends that are and it pains me to see them pandering to Obama just because he said he approves of gay marriage. It pains me more to see the son of my political hero pandering to the hard christian right for reasons I don't understand.

Doctor Paul retains his personal opinions while still spreading a message of liberty and personal freedom. I feel that if Rand were a true libertarian he would do the same. I am just disappointed, I guess, because I thought Rand was the future of the movement. I will always remain a libertarian but will be unable to support him if he is willing to sell out on a personal freedom issue.

I would really love others viewpoints on this. Maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way?

http://youtu.be/t9tlQXbeL3s

Full video skip to about 5:15

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand holds the same political

Rand holds the same political stance and personal view on gay marriage as his father.

I'm not really sure what concerns you here. Perhaps it's this...
"Doctor [Ron] Paul retains his personal opinions while still spreading a message of liberty and personal freedom."

How do I know Ron Paul's personal opinion of gay marriage? I heard it from his mouth. Actually, I'm more certain about Ron's personal views than Rand's. If you listen carefully Rand doesn't directly address gay marriage. His first reference is really a comment about Obama. His second emphasis [to the Christian audience] is a reminder to be tolerant. His final emphasis reassures his audience to not fear for the destruction of traditional marriage.

I find it odd to idolize Ron above Rand in these matters. For instance, Ron clouded the political stage so heavily with his personal views on abortion that the majority of his audience either never knew or forgot that his political stance was to simply leave it to the States.

After seeing my brothers and

After seeing my brothers and friends lives totally turned upside down by divorce, the last thing I want to do is get married....and I'm a very conservative gay man.

God gave me the, "get out of jail for free card," and I'm thankful for it. I'm also thankful for my political gaydar. I found this video to be quite revealing....

In the first 10 seconds of this video, Rand says:

"In my personal life I struggle, but I, I, I, I'm a Christian I try to be faithful, I'm very faithful to my wife, my family, my kids."

He, "struggles." He tries to be faithful.

I wonder what that means?

At 6 minutes in he calls being gay a sin to his audience...and I call him a good actor, and a politician pandering to the choir. On abortion, I totally agree. On gay marriage, I do not agree...but I've got a feeling that Rand would actually compromise with gay, "unions."

I place America above my own individual politics. I'm defititely not a one issue voter. Gay, "marriage," is the last thing we should be discussing at this moment in time. Let the states handle the issue, not the federal government.

America is all shot up and Obama is sinking our ship, but the people on board are more concerned about the gay band playing in the ballroom.

Blame the Jews. Blame the gays.

Blame yourself.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

...

Comment removed as the reply was to previous comment.

Quick answer

is that Rand is wrong. While we would all prefer government out of marriage, until we can achieve that, a same sex couples ought to be granted the same privileges that the state grants other married couples. I don't give a damn what the Koran says about what Allah thinks a coupled human relationship should look like. Obviously the state is in the business of discrimination, but it shouldn't be. So I just have to accept that Rand is wrong here. He seems to be our best shot at moving in a positive direction, I will not let perfect be the enemy of good, but he is certainly no Ron.

Liberty, that we hope to achieve, doesn't....

...take up an offensive position against "the laws of nature, and of nature's God" as a policy position to protect a minority engaged in medically risky behavior, from the FREE SPEECH of majority that has social history of normalcy on its side.

The government is in the marriage business for ONE thing, control! They seek to control the "fruit" of any marriage within the CONTRACT between the married couple and the State, and lawyers and judges and psychologists and social workers all make MONEY when couples have "disagreements" and involve the civil authorities!

Gays have all the freedom to do their gay thing wherever they want; they should not be seeking to employ government FORCE against any religious organizations or churches to accept their unnatural lifestyle as normal, nor should they be lobbying the government to FORCE taxpayers to reward, refund, share the consequences and medical costs incurred when medical wisdom advises against their sexual acts.

Government is FORCE; they shouldn't be involved in marriage...If Rand is "pandering", the militant homosexual lobby is seeking to overthrow thousands of years of social norms...under Liberty, gays have their own communities, and their values compete against other values; and each community bears their own costs alone through what they allow their elected representatives to reward/punish through the civil magistrates.

marriage did NOT originate as a government institution

Lol

Your opinion is your own to have, but stick to opinion and rather introduce dubious ideas as if they were fact. "Medically risky behavior". Damn fags with their AIDS, and gonorrhea, and syphilis. Good thing us heteros don't have to deal with that. Of course they don't have the massive medical risk of pregnancy....

"Laws of nature", and "God's law" are not understood to be the same by non-Christians. For instance a law of nature is the force of gravity, a law of God is "Don't take the Lord's name in vain". You can understand that a non-Christian does not believe the natural world suggests to them that they shouldn't take the Christian God's name in vain. Homosexual behavior does in fact occur in the natural world. Is it the most "normal" version of coupling in the animal kingdom, no, but then self proclaimed homosexual people represent a very small percentage of the human population as well.

NEWSPEAK

Could we not call it gay. It's homosexuality or sodomy.

Gay denotes merry, lively mood, cheerful.

George Orwell: ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’
Appendix
THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWSPEAK

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Semantics

Faggot used to mean "a bundle of sticks or twigs" - words have different meanings in different time frames. We all know what gay means and in this context it doesn't denote a homosexual being "merry, lively, or cheerful."

Deliberately

Deliberately undermining the meaning of existing words is not semantics. If it was an organic processes then I would agree.

It's an agenda of the ruling elite.

Pretty soon liberty will mean a cell phone contract.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Lol

It's an "agenda" because that's what you choose to believe. Everyone knows what gay means and I, nor anyone else, has a softer view on gays because of the previous definition "gay" holds.

I'm going to take a wild guess. You dislike gays and that means finding any way, shape, or form to oppose them. I don't like or dislike them, so I've got no bias.

ron_paul-bot_12413's picture

I have the answer!!!!!!!!

Well, I plagiarized but it's a good one!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

-George Washington

Does it pain you, Gator,

that hetero are called racist if they openly express being proud of their sexuality, while gays are not? Try to get permission for a hetero pride parade. Until gays abandon "group rights" perks or fight for equal "hetero group rights", I feel no need to lift a finger.

Actually government does have a right....

"my personal belief that the government had NO right telling someone how to live their lives"

They sure do, especially when you pose a risk to others and therefor can impede their own pursuit of happiness. We pass laws all the time because of this -- e.g. no drunk driving, etc.

So the debate comes down to "how does one's personal choice to be homosexual affect other people".

Well, there's man's attempt to define that, such as this:
http://www.evangelical.us/homosexuality/questions/homosexual...
http://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

But since God is the author on freedom and liberty and He said homosexuality is wrong (Romans 1:26-27), I'm going to support Rand Paul on his stance -- because his stance - that homosexuality is wrong - is based in morality. You can't have true freedom without morality.

Wrong, I'll tell you why.

Homosexuals make a choice in their lifestyle. Just like anyone else who chooses paper over plastic or drugs to no drugs.

The harmful effects of homosexuality you speak of are common knowledge. Meaning men and women who engage in it are aware of the repercussions. If they choose to follow that path, that's their choice, not yours or the governments.

There has to be an extent to the morality in a free society. I'm not saying killing, raping, or stealing is included in that extent, but the issue is when that morality starts dictating everyone's lives. Live your moral life the way you see fit and allow others to live theirs the way they see fit.

Injecting religion into government is not a free society, it's a theocracy. The only reason you think government has a right to dictate people's lives is because you feel safe in the fact that they'll protect your religious beliefs. If the government were to influence social behavior based on Islam or Buddhism, you'd be greatly offended and scared. That's why freedom for all is crucial and protection of following your religion or lack thereof shouldn't be taken lightly. Your beliefs shouldn't be forced on anyone and nobody else's should be forced on you.

You don't get it.

"Injecting religion into government is not a free society, it's a theocracy."

Thou shalt not murder -- religious doctrine.
Thou shalt not steal -- religious doctrine.

You might say, "Well that's obvious, you're hurting other people!" Well that's a horrible standard to judge anything because humans can be convinced otherwise -- Nazi's thought hurting Jews was OK.

"The only reason you think government has a right to dictate people's lives is because you feel safe in the fact that they'll protect your religious beliefs."

No, I think God has a right to dictate how people should live their lives -- and He does indeed. Homosexuality is a disgusting practice that God abhors. He has said that the land will vomit its inhabitants out if they practice it, and indeed history shows it did. So, considering He is the author of freedom and liberty and following anyone else leads to enslavement via sin -- I'm going to follow Him and take up any fight against any form of corruption in society, not just the politically correct fights.

That's not to say that religious folks can't be brainwashed into doing bad things -- they definitely can. But God made pretty clear His stance on this issue.

If government is going to make any law respecting marriage, then it absolutely cannot respect gay-marriage. It would probably be best if government did stay out of and marriage had no special government benefits, but that is not the case today, unfortunately. What if two women (or a group, nuns?) who were heterosexual, yet never wished to be married, simply wanted to live their lives together? It's not fair that the government doesn't grant them the same benefits as married people. I'll stand with anyone who fights to get government out of marriage. But that is a different issue altogether. The issue I have is the government actively allowing homosexual marriages.

I don't think you get it.

Thou shalt not murder -- religious doctrine.
Thou shalt not steal -- religious doctrine.

Also non-religious principles of morality. I believe morality is innate.

You might say, "Well that's obvious, you're hurting other people!" Well that's a horrible standard to judge anything because humans can be convinced otherwise -- Nazi's thought hurting Jews was OK.

Not really - the Nazi's didn't believe in a free society.

No, I think God has a right to dictate how people should live their lives -- and He does indeed. Homosexuality is a disgusting practice that God abhors.

Really? If God dictates people's lives then explain why he provided us with free will and a choice between heaven and hell. And explain why Christians rank homosexuality on a higher sin margin than most other sins.

RedState.com seems like it would be more your cup of tea.

Maybe, but God gets it....

"Also non-religious principles of morality. I believe morality is innate."

If it was innate, why did God dictate them to Moses?

"the Nazi's didn't believe in a free society."

That wasn't my point.... My point was that people can easily define "hurting other people" as moral, demonstrating humanity's inability to be an authority on morality.

"If God dictates people's lives then explain why he provided us with free will and a choice between heaven and hell"

Again, not my point.... My point is that God demands holiness because He is a holy God. Therefore He dictates what is holy and what's not -- not humans. Of course humans can choose to not follow God, but that doesn't mean God's demand for holiness will go unaccounted for.

"And explain why Christians rank homosexuality on a higher sin margin than most other sins."

God treats all sin the same, but different sin has different consequences, so we rank accordingly. How many cities were burned down to the ground by God for non-sexual sin? Also, homosexuality is unique in that people say it isn't sin. There's not a group out there going around promoting murder as a-okay (well, there are jihadists). But for some reason people think homosexuality is ok -- which is based only on human understanding of homosexuality, not Gods.

I just want to throw out out there that I hate pornography and all sexual sin the same, such as premarital sex between heterosexuals, etc. But people, for the most part know those are sins and accept it as sin. For some reason homosexuality is portrayed differently.

Biologically incorrect.

People come MOSTLY in "male" and "female" flavors, but there are a few who fall between the lines - physically. Some are born with womb and penis, some are born with no womb or penis. If we are created in a spectrum of sexes biologically, it seems pretty obvious we would come in a spectrum hormonally.
Here's the answer: GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR FAMILIES.
They don't get to define them, they don't get to choose who marries who, they don't get to sterilize "retards" (they were doing that as recently as 1970's), they don't get to euthanize old people (that is what "hospice" is really about), and they don't get to tell me which pregnancies I carry to term and which ones I terminate.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Personally

Government should have nothing to do with marriage. I also feel if gays want to be married than they should call it something else. Marriage is defined as - a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife. Plus where are they going to get married? What Church is going to throw out Gods Teachings? Not many......

It's really that simple

... and I've thought that exact way my entire life:

1 - What does government have to do with any of this in the first place?

Oh. Ultimately so some special group (same sex couples) can qualify for programs where the "authorities" agree to STEAL LESS OF YOUR MONEY over the course of your life than they already do.

Ok. That sure sounds like a great deal huh.

and

2 - Why do same sex couples have this obsession with hi-jacking a word that has a SPIRITUAL meaning in most "religions" have defined already as being between a man and woman and nothing else.

What church of any faith that does not recognize same sex couples as legitimate candidates for marriage could ever be FORCED to??

They would close the church down first.

No. Find a church that will do it for you or just call it something else. You (same sex people) do not need anybodies validation or label to live your life the way you want.

Keep the government out of it entirely. And they can stop stealing ALL the money while they're at it.

This entire debate is a reflection of our warped and retarded society.

A 10-year-old boy once told

A 10-year-old boy once told me that my car was gay. I'm really confused about the whole gay thing now.

Drain the swamp!

The way I see it, should gays

The way I see it, should gays and lesbians be able to get government benefits? I think so if they want to have that type of committed relationship and love each other. But I don't believe they should be able to get "married" so to speak because God has already defined that marriage is between a man and a woman in the Bible, it's not up to us as Americans, politicians, judges, or just human beings in general, to change the definition of marriage. We can't! So, with that being said, the problem I see is the fact that government gets involved in marriage to begin with. We probably wouldn't have this issue if big government would keep their greedy noses out of marriage to begin with.

to me this is stupidity...

to me this is stupidity... not support Rand because of a single issue? There are many more important issues than "gay" marriage.

Is Rand Promoting Some Law To Make Gay Sex Illegal?

Is marriage a right? - A human right? I agree with Rand that States should decide and to get the government out of recognizing marriage through the tax code. What is wrong with some states allowing gay marriage and other states not or will over time? Can't people just move to the states that allow gay marriage?

Is Rand saying that two people can't sign a civil union contract and then have all the ceremony they want?- No.

(rolls eyes)

then farts...

I wish these social issues would just go the fuck away. They sure as hell dont help our movement at all.

He is speaking to religious people. I get it. Big deal.

#IstillStandWithRand

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

POST BY MEMBER OF 10 MONTHS

Recent posts ONE ( this post and only this post ) BUYER BEWARE! Trust but verify, look at everyone, how long have they been here, how active are they, how many posts and topics have they submitted, are most or all of their posts negative.

I am not saying this is a case but... be very cautious as to taking things as gospel without taking the time to verify the statements. In other words, don't be a sheep like we talk about here daily, be educated and make solid decisions based on fact NOT propaganda.

So the Daily Paul is all encompassing?

All without is of being a political heretic?

Life only during membership of DP is accepted?

When a post is from someone

When a post is from someone that has only made ONE POST here in their ENTIRE 10 months, yes, it is suspect. Read what I wrote before you make assumptions as to my motives.

The fact is Rand is making the CONSTITUTIONAL case for states rights to decide, this is the proper way, NOT your opinion or anyone elses.

What about me?

How long have I been here?

His position on this

will lose him votes.

I have many gay friends and they're all lovely people. What they do in their bedrooms bothers me not. And if they want to be married, great - the world needs more love. If it is such a horrible abomination, I leave it to God to decide the disposition of their souls.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift