84 votes

Does Ron Paul Support Gay Marriage?

Thanks Dr. Paul for giving us the Libertarian perspective


http://youtu.be/sQkNEcXPAHs

Dr. Paul gives a more elaborate explanation to Cavuto on Obama's Gay Marriage Statement, 5-9-12:


http://youtu.be/AW9ZcLSUVM4

Comment viewing options

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

Well..

Considering that our sexuality is outside of our control, what exactly does "being Christian" have to do with it? My point being that our sexuality is innate and hardwired within us, thus it does not matter if you're Christian or not. I was raised Christian but I was also born gay. Being Christian certainly in no way stops one from being gay, therefore I don't understand how it should form your views on people being born gay. Some gay people marry or are a couple but choose to NOT have sex. This assumption that gay = sex is a major problem with Christianity today.

For example, I knew I was gay long before I was old enough to be sexually active. I knew I was gay when I was around 3 to 5 years old. Yet I constantly heard how evil I was, even though I'd never even touched another boy OR GIRL in that manner. Christianity did great damage to my soul with this. They never clarified the difference between someone who's born gay, versus the sexual acts. As I've gotten older I now see that the church largely ignores it because they hate it and fear it. The problem is you can't begin to help gay people if you won't study it.

This is a major problem for me and why I'm increasingly hostile toward organized religion. It has a tendency to dumb people down, make them blind servants who don't or can't ask questions. It also pits those in the religion against those outside the religion. Similar to POLITICS. Sometimes when people say religion and politics don't mix, I scoff. It's almost like a cruel joke. I've said it before but remember - pay your taxes or you'll go jail. Don't be gay or you'll go hell! It's the same threat by the same mindless thugs.

Anyway, good luck.

(Sorry.. I kinda got on a rant)

why? it's like abortion and guns and God: NEVER-resolvable

"God, Guns, and Gays" the 3-G political football for the politically expedient and Machiavellian Fabian socialist types to keep the 'peons' fighting among ourselves, nothing more complicated than that, in finality.

sure, their methods may range from subtly complex, to incredibly brazen and blatant, but their modus operandi and reasons behind it are pretty cliche: divide and conquer.

which is why all of this is always so frustrating that the people cannot see plainly generationally obvious Truth: the Banksters, the Banksters, the Banksters! It's the Banksters, Stupid!

Oh yeah, then there's the whole humanity's incessant, seemingly unending historical epoch & cycles of seeking leaders outside of our individual selves, and the religion and 'divine' faith in the worse idea ever conceived by the human species: govt. Worse, the notion of the NEVER-existent unicorn faith: a 'benign' govt.

Debt & Wars is how they enslave, imprison and destroy us, IF we LET them.

as old as time, no?

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Cyril's picture

Yes. Exactly.

Yes. Exactly.

Plus, like I said :

add to that the very convenient betrayal against language and words.

That helps them tremendously :

That's "money", right?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

yup

FRN's = currency, not money.

I hope that fact is permeating outside of our circles, even if one is a Ellen Brown/Bill Still 'greenbacker.'

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

NO...

He is not PRO-homosexual. He believes in marriage in the traditional sense. Remember that 97% of the population are normal or heterosexual.

And, I do agree that our Founders' beliefs were interwoven into the Constitution. It is a document, albeit concerned with our very precious freedoms, but also with the underpinnings of America's Christian theological roots.

It's good to be a liberterian, but we can't forget that our Founder's were Christians, ALL of them---they were Protestants AND Catholics. There were no atheists that wrote or signed any of our outstanding documents, not one.

That's one thing Ron Paul doesn't probably talk enough about, but it's a GOOD thing TO talk about, imho..

Might also add that Rome fell , also, because of its immorality.

The U.S. Constitution Doesn't Address Marriage

If The courts knew their limitations they would allow the citizens of each state to address, decide or define what constitutes marriage.

We got hosed here in California because the will of the people (Prop. 8) prevailed, the Proposition was passed but then subsequently challenged in the courts by some gay activists. The court should have ruled that the will of the people had decided what constitutes a legal and exceptable marriage.

When the courts get involved in the peoples business they open pandoras box to all kinds mischief for future generations, even altering, and changing our traditional republican way of life..

** My point about gay sex:

Someone once asked me if I thought gay sex was wrong and inappropriate. My response was, "If you saw a man walking down the street trying to eat a hot dog through his nose, wouldn't you think that was strange, wrong or at least a little wierd?

If God gave us sex fror procreation, then how could you ever procreate in the way gays do?

If we lose our moral framework, then we lose our country to the degenerates, who really want the freedom to do as they please, when they please. This is a recipe for diasater.

Originally, this was what seperated us from the Europeans.

But to promote and permit this disgusting lifestyle into a presumably moral society, goes against what the founders intended America to be: a shiny example for the world to follow..

History has taught us, if we care to learn from, is that all great civilized societies crumble and degenerate when there societies permit and condone homosexuality as an exceptable lifestyle..

inane

When candidates are asked questions, they are obligated to respond. And that makes it appear as if all the questions are the most important topics in the country. To me, gay marriage is so far down the list of pressing issues that it deserves no time at all. Economic and foreign policy issues to me are real issues. Gay marriage is like asking a candidate to spend time evaluating Britney Spears' love life. It's an insult. There are powerful people who absolutely love the fact that Americans are obsessed over inane topics. They don't give a rat's ass which way the country moves with it. They just want you thinking about it instead of something that could really be a threat to them.

The MSM pushes inane topics the same way they present political debates as entertainment, and spend the time afterwards talking about body language, the number of times a word was used, who seemed more dominant, etc. All that silly stuff that their bosses care nothing about. They aren't allowed to discuss whether candidates have good points or a good plan.

Ron Paul's position:

It shouldn't be an issue for government at all, but if it must be, then at least let it be an issue for the States, since the federal government clearly has no constitutional authority.

I don't know what his personal view of gay marriage is, and it doesn't matter.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Dr Paul did not answer the question

The government is in marriage. Should gay unions be sanctioned? Does he believe homosexuality is normal/ moral? Should the definition of marriage be changed to include gay unions? Are all moral systems valid? Is there absolute truth?

Cyril's picture

"Is there absolute truth?" Yes, there is :

"Is there absolute truth?"

Yes, there is :

the proper use of language and meaning of words should be respected and evolve only very slowly with extreme precaution, at minima.

Stop calling a spade "a spade" and you end up with things such as fiat money, just for an interesting example impacting... what? ... A few billions of human beings, apparently. Quite significant, I'd say.

Choosing, by prudence (to not confuse minds or create temptations of deceptions) to NOT denote this or that, with this or that word or noun, DOES NOT imply, ANYWAY, a denial, or prohibition, or endorsement, of the thing or idea being denoted.

The respect for things or ideas, be they positive or negative, creative or destructive, for or against freedom, comes with the respect for the language, to begin with.

I would recommend we do not change the definition of "marriage" and we leave gay people alone, free to enter and live in their unions as they please, just naming it differently, with the same pride.

Homosexuality being seen as something positive, moral, or not, has nothing to do with respecting the language, FIRST - we have had ENOUGH confusion AND HARM because of language neglect, already, and forcing on us much less positive things.

I do not want to see "tax" to become synonym of "charity" some day, nor "rape" to become synonym of "having sex", nor "aspartame" to become synonym of "sugar", nor "law abiding" to become synonym of "government-obedient", etc, etc.

Hell is PAVED with good intentions. Under blinding lights of language approximations.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Divide and Conquer - An Implementation. Versus liberty's PoV

Divide and Conquer - An Implementation.

> File > New > Workbook

> Edit > New > Spreadsheet > "Genders"

Women. Men. [invent specific "rights"]

> Edit > New > Spreadsheet > "Ages"

Kids. Teenagers. Adults. Elders. [invent specific "rights"]

> Edit > New > Spreadsheet > "Skin color, ethnics"

Blacks. Whites. Asians. Slavic. Caucasians. Nordic. Native Americans. ... [append here] [invent specific "rights"] [finger point aggressive ones, identify protected ones]

> Edit > New > Spreadsheet > "Religions, faith"

Atheists. Agnostics. Christians. Catholics. Protestants. Mormons. Muslims. Chiites. Sunnites. Jewish. ... [invent specific "rights"] [finger point dangerous ones]

> Edit > New > Spreadsheet > "Feeding prefs."

Omnivorous. Vegetarians. Raw milk drinkers. Stinky cheeses amateurs. anti-GMO's. pro-GMO's. GMO-don't care. ... [invent specific "rights"] [finger point undesirable ones]

> Edit > New > Spreadsheet > "Income"

Super rich, in 0.5%. Very rich, in the 1%. New rich. Old rich. In the 99%. The poor. The very poor. ... [invent specific "rights"] [finger point undesirable ones]

Etc, etc.

...

Versus liberty's point of view... that is, Ron Paul's, in my understanding :

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Wow, I miss him.

Wow, I miss him.

Poor Gays,

too full of self impotence and barrow pushing to realize that they are mere pawns in the State verses Church argument. To all the "important" gays out there, wake up to the fact that you are being used.

Who knows what could happen?

Who knows what could happen? Perhaps one of these days, someone like Santorum will become president and use their marriage licenses to identify them and do what hes always wished. Perhaps he will impose an "immorality" tax.

This entire argument of gay

This entire argument of gay marrage seems to me to affirm the control of the state over the people. It is a question based on the wrong premise. I watched a George Carlin video the other night where he said (paraphrased), "I love individuals. You can see the universe in an individuals eyes if you look hard enough. I hate groups of people. I hate people with a common purpose because soon they have little hats and armbands and a list of people they're going to visit at 3 AM." It seems groups are always being used. It's only the individual who can stand against it.

Immortal Wisdom:

Never join a group where headgear is either mandatory or prohibited. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNkkko4vlBs

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

jrd3820's picture

Yup it's pretty much that simple

Get the government out of it. It really is not anyone's business who is married to who, why, how, or when.

I don't disagree that

I don't disagree that government should have no say or part in marriage, since I believe it is an unconstitutional establishment of religion by government. The lame excuse that it is a respected tradition is pure crap. It is a religious ceremony and the marriage license as a legal document does not excuse it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Having said that, I'd like to know exactly who has been working tirelessly to extract government involvement from "traditional marriage", now that a slight majority of the public approves of gay marriage? Speak up. Suddenly either definitions don't matter, government "shouldn't" be involved, gay people are "entitled" or "bullies"... It's laughable! Either Americans receive equal treatment under the law, as they must, or actively work to dismantle the system and insist that government meddling in religious matters be consistent, including IRS preference to religious institutions.

Great perspective

on a current event

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

You betcha dex.

and as usual, he nails it.

thanks for posting the link. :)

Ron Paul is My President