Home » Forums » Politics, General + Law(s) » Rand Paul
15 votes

Rand Paul gay marriage comments

Submitted by gator34241 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 23:00
in

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


Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:

E-mail address:  

»

Comment viewing options

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

Ugh.. No, that's not possible

Submitted by Robert Timsah on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 18:56.

Ugh.. No, that's not possible because homosexuality is not a sexual behavior or act. It's a sexual orientation. At LEAST understand what the hell you're talking about before you condemn people. Stupidity has wreaked havoc on Christians.

—

Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/

bullshit. I do not choose to

Submitted by SIERRAHPBT on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 22:55.

bullshit. I do not choose to stick my junk in a dog or any other mammal etc.

A sexual act is covered under homoSEXUALITY

Submitted by oaebcr on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 19:14.

Get real and at least be honest. Male homosexuality involves one man placing part of his genitalia in the rectum of another, and there is no chance for pro-creation.

The argument becomes should that be considered normal behavior to the point to force all states to change definition of marriage - that's it.

I say let each state decide and what people do in private is their business - as long as it's not against the law.

Oaebcr.. Let Me Explain

Submitted by Robert Timsah on Wed, 04/10/2013 - 04:41.

Using your definition of homosexuality, there would be no celibate homosexuals. Which is silly. Of course there are MANY gay people who've not had any sexual acts with other men. Thus the act of sex is separate from homosexuality. Sexuality is merely the sexual and intimate attraction to a particular sex or sexes, nothing more. These distinctions, while annoying, are very necessary to fully understand the issue.

Thus, homosexuality cannot be anymore abnormal than heterosexuality because it's not an act but rather is innate within each of us. I cannot be blamed for my homosexuality anymore than you could for your heterosexuality. What we do with it is between us and our partners.

Hope that made sense.

—

Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/

You're An Ignorant Liar

Submitted by Robert Timsah on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 18:25.

You're so ignorant of the Bible. Do you even know the story of Sodom and gomorrah? It has nothing to do with someone being homosexual. This is the story involving an entire town of individuals. Do you seriously believe that "everyone" in the entire town was homosexual? That's not even true in SanFranciso.

Since Old Testament times did not equate the Sodom story with homosexual acts, what was the crime of Sodom - a crime worth the destruction of five thriving, wealthy cities on the fertile plains?

The crime was pride. And it was inhospitality.

We have to remember the Hebrews were a nomad people in a dry, hostile environment. Weather and suspicious neighbors made hospitality a matter of survival. Being welcomed in a stranger's home or tent could mean the difference between life and death.

Throughout the Old Testament, Sodom is held up as a lesson in wickedness that deserves utter destruction for reasons other than homosexual acts. Examples: Ezekiel 16:49 - 50, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Isaiah tells of lack of justice. Jeremiah emphasizes moral and ethical laxity. The Deuterocanonical books identify the sin as pride and inhospitality; in Wisdom 19:13-14, we read "...whereas the men of Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them." In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 the sin is recognized as pride: "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride." In the New Testament, too, there is reference to Sodom and inhospitality: In Luke 10:10-13, Christ talks about cities that are inhospitable to his disciples. He warns: "...it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city." It's not until the very late books of 2 Peter (2:4) and Jude (6), that sex is considered a sin of Sodom. These books were written several generations after the deaths of the apostles and were talking about the transgression of the natural order of life when angelic and human beings have heterosexual relations - a major concern to the popular Stoic philosophy of the time.

Not only are there no references to homosexual acts when Scripture refers to Sodom, there are no references to Sodom when the Scriptures refer to homosexuality. There are several biblical passages that some have misunderstood as condemning homosexual acts. Not one of these gives Sodom as an example of the result of homosexual behavior. Considering how often Sodom was used as an example of the result of wicked behavior, it's apparent that biblical times did not see homosexual acts as the important lesson of the destruction of Sodom.

I would post more but someone of your caliber probably won't read it. You'll duck your ignorant head back in the sand.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sodom.html

Then lastly, someone is gay outside of any sexual acts. Therefore, sexual acts are not the issue here. The fact that you immediate equate homosexuality with certain sexual acts, based off of a completely ignorant interpretation of "Sodom and Gomorrah" just means you're completely wrong about everything you write. Do you want to be wrong? Do you want to lie? Because doing so would mean you're acting PERVERSE.

—

Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/

I am an Ignorant liar? I love people like you

Submitted by HonorGod on Wed, 04/10/2013 - 00:26.

You immediately interject biblical text because you assume that is what is being implied.

sodomite [ˈsɒdəˌmaɪt]n
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Physiology) a person who practises sodomy
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sodomite

Now lets stick with facts my young padwan. I did not mention dirt crap about Sodem, Gemorrah, sin, God or anything of the sort. So WHO has the issue here "BOY"?

Can I offer you an upside-down stool?

Your a sick person.

—

http://wilco287.com

Well..

Submitted by Robert Timsah on Wed, 04/10/2013 - 04:12.

And where does the term sodomite or sodomy originate from? That's kind of important. As I've already shown - the town of Sodom and Gomorrah were accused of being wicked and immoral on many different levels, not just gay sexual intercourse - in fact, they did not engage merely in gay sexual acts - they RAPED GUESTS, which is a LITTLE DIFFERENT than just consensual sex. This would be like me using a story from the bible where a guy rapes a woman to suggest that this means HETEROSEXUAL SEX IS IMMORAL. But on to the term's "as"inine origination;

c.1300, from O.Fr. sodomie, from L.L. peccatum Sodomiticum "anal sex," lit. "sin of Sodom," from L. Sodoma, ult. from Heb. s'dom "Sodom," morally corrupt city in ancient Palestine, said to have been destroyed, with neighboring Gomorrah, by fire from heaven (Gen. xviii-xix). Sodomize coined 1868. In Du.
slang, besodemieteren means "to deceive," and evidently is built from the traditional notion of "corruption" in Sodom.

The story from which the term originates suggests that "sodomy" could mean almost anything. For instance, I could accuse someone of being a "sodomite" because they're not nice to strangers. Once you understand that the term sodomy REALLY means nothing, it then seems really ridiculous when someone uses it to define or argue something. Although I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing.

Your particular focus and fascination appears to be with anal sex, which is also useless because many homosexuals also don't like to engage in it, nor is it exclusively practiced by homosexuals - thus your entire case is completely DESTROYED. The very same judgments you apply to homosexuality could equally apply to heterosexuality.

Do you want to kill all homosexuals?
Are you suggesting all homosexuals should merely "not be allowed" to marry?
Are you against sex in general, or just between those of the same sex?
What is your problem with homosexuality, if not biblical interpretation?

—

Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/

It doesn't need to be just homosexuals

Submitted by zforce on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 18:47.

it can be homosexuals, and those like Lot's wife who accepted such behavior as being normal.

You mean behavior like RAPE?

Submitted by Robert Timsah on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 18:50.

You mean behavior like RAPE? I've studied this issue of homosexuality and the Bible FOR YEARS and the worst "case" they have is this ignorant interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. It's something that's used to this day in a legal sense to describe something that has nothing to do with the story it stems from! Sodom and Gomorrah has as much to do with homosexuality as it has to do with heterosexuality. NOTHING.

—

Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/

IT surely has everything to do with homosexuals

Submitted by zforce on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 19:00.

and other deviant behavior and thinking.

Uh, no it does not. Rape is

Submitted by Robert Timsah on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 19:13.

Uh, no it does not. Rape is rape. Sexual orientation matters not. Small minded morons just can't make the proper distinctions.

—

Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/

No..

Submitted by zforce on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 20:38.

Sodom and Gomorrah comes down to immoral selfishness..the symptoms are homosexuality, rape, not caring for the poor, lewdness, and so much more.

That's stupid. Using that

Submitted by Robert Timsah on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 21:25.

That's stupid. Using that logic another symptom would be heterosexuality, thus you probably just convicted yourself of being a "sodomite"

—

Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/

I agree

Submitted by zforce on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 22:13.

There is a such thing as immoral selfish heterosexuality. Though the difference between homo and hetero is that one is always immoral while the other is only in certain circumstances.

Well, actually the Bible

Submitted by Robert Timsah on Wed, 04/10/2013 - 04:21.

Well, actually the Bible never explicitly says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. I guess one could say it advises against it. But I advise against using the Bible as the inerrant word of God. LOL

—

Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/

We both agree

Submitted by zforce on Wed, 04/10/2013 - 21:58.

The bible is NOT God's inerrant word. More like an amalgamation of God's words with man.

Nevertheless..

Rand is a panderer, more than

Submitted by Brian Middleton on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 17:52.

Rand is a panderer, more than you guys give him credit for.. He is not a libertarian. He is NOT his father.

He caved on several things. Once in a while he surprises me, but I cannot support him the way I supported his dad.

—

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I agree 100%

Submitted by valhallaviking on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:20.

In fact, I just sent an email to Rand yesterday saying that I had planned on giving money to him, as I have with Ron, but based on his comments, I have changed my mind.

Most of the Ron Paul supporters/volunteers I talk to have no plans to work for Rand.

If he thinks he is just "playing nice" and "working within the system," unlike his father, then most of us will not be inspired by this.

I think the fact that

Submitted by jay0718 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:07.

I think the fact that religious right leader Tony Perkins ripped Rand over the comments is a clear indicatioin of what you're going to get pandering to these type of people. If Rand runs for president in the future, does he really think he'll get votes from the religious right if a Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum type candidate is running? Rand will always have my support, but I'm not with him on this one.

You know what

Submitted by Conservative Warrior on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 20:37.

i'd give my left nut if i could come on this website and see some topics other than this gay, homosexual and transgender garbage all up and down the right side of the screen.
Its starting to resemble the MSM freak show around here.
So your gay and you dont like what Rand said GREAT, we GET IT, now can we move on to real issues please?
The Titanic is sinking,and you fools are arguing over deck chairs just like they want you to be.
If i wanted to have this crap shoved in my face everytime i logged on i would just go to the MSM outlets!
Gay this, Gay that ... WHO CARES? Can we move on to things that actually matter ? Your poluting my screen with gay garbage....

—

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

I care about intolerance.

Submitted by Brian Middleton on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 17:53.

I care about intolerance. Apparently you don't.

—

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

What you don't understand

Submitted by anothernobody on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:35.

is that a lot of posters here only care about advancing their deviant life style. Some will even revert back to Obama now that he has changed his position. If we could ever get Paul's views in place then we wouldn't have to put up with them any more. Which I find kinda strange because they think his policy views would help there cause of forced acceptance.

Not gay

Submitted by vman2003 on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 20:51.

I'm not gay, so gay marriage issue does not directly affect me, but Rand's yesterday's statement shows that he's a) immature and childish b) panderer. Compare what he said to what RP said just a few days before on Cavuto show and see how much more sensible and common-sense his statement was. Rand seems like a little college boy that just got into the fraternity and now he's making little jokes and being a fool trying to make the older boys laugh at his jokes so he can be accepted in their club. We don't need someone like that - way too many in congress as is.

To you all

Submitted by gator34241 on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 20:18.

It was never my intention to put fire on gas, I was simply looking for others educated opinions and thoughts from like minded people. Even though there is division with some issues I believe everyone here at the Daily Paul shares a common goal and similar attitudes. On this website some of the most passionate and strong willed political people come together for a common cause. I love reading on the forums because you can literally feel the energy in peoples words. I did not mean to come off as a troll and I understand how some saw it as that. I am not sorry for my post and stand by what I said but it was never meant in a malicious or hurtful to anyone and I do not wish it to be seen as so. I wish desperately I could be physically involved with the campaign and in no way would I intentionally try and cause division.

Thanks

Since the issue is more on

Submitted by loveartgirl on Tue, 04/09/2013 - 17:46.

Since the issue is even more on topic now than when you posted this, I thought I would go ahead and comment. I found this thread as I searched Rand Paul and his stance on homosexual marriage. I am as strong a Ron Paul supporter as there ever was, did phone banking for him, cluttered my FB page with him, and tried to become a delegate. The only area I differed slightly with him on was gay marriage. I am personally relieved to see that Rand's stand leans a little more conservative. I have many gay friends and would never want to see them deprived of any kind of rights with regards to social security, next of kin etc and feel that all of this should be accomplished with a civil union. What makes me uncomfortable are a few other things. How would libertarians view the idea of churches being forced to perform gay marriages and pastors being thrown into jail if they refuse to perform homosexual marriage, because it violates their religious beliefs? The idea of this happening does not seem very libertarian at all, and is therefore of definite concern. I don't understand why the insistence to high jack the word "marriage" in redefining it, if equal rights should and can be accomplished legally in a civil union...

—

loveartgirl

I noticed you've only been on

Submitted by jay0718 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:11.

I noticed you've only been on the dailypaul for three days, so I'm just going to warn you: Be prepared to be called a troll several times on here. I've been called a troll numerous times. There's nothing wrong with your post.

I cannot possibly see

Submitted by Thisissupposedt... on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 22:05.

What would be offensive about your statement

I don't like his statement.

Submitted by austria4ronpaul on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 18:09.

Rand Paul is conservative. A small government conservative. He has some leanings, which you can consider libertarian. But he is not a libertarian.

He is a good senator. I like a lot what he has done. But not all.

I don't like his comment. It makes him small.

After Ron we cannot rely just on Rand. First, we have to rely on ourselves. And the friends in our community. At the more or less national level, we should have more than one person. Maybe 5-10. They could be Rand, Justin, Gary, the Judge and some we don't know about yet.

—

________________________________________
my Ron Paul video collection:

www.youtube.com/austria4ronpaul
(4 years RP, over 2300 videos)

On the not so important issues the two parties bicker about

Submitted by tog2476 on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 17:10.

Rand is definitely portraying himself as status quo, but I think there is a very good reason for this. He needs to blend in as much as possible, it is the large issues that we will need Rand to tackle in his future bid for the presidency. He is playing the game a little different than his father so he can gain traction. Don't waste your time questioning his actions, Rand Paul is one of us, he just plays the game a little less straight forward than his father, which is what it is going to take to win.

—

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

There really is no excuse for

Submitted by Velveeta Underground on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 00:14.

There really is no excuse for such a boneheaded, Sean Hannity-like joke... unless he was drunk. And he'd have to be really, really drunk to say something so idiotic at this time. Did anyone smell his breath after his speech?

—

www.gunowners.org