Ron Paul surging in SC...

WaveRyder

Wilds wrote:

Ron Paul And Gay Marriage
Author: Chris Harris
Published: May 19, 2011


I heard a very sharp caller defending and explaining the position of Dr. Paul on the issue of same sex marriage.


He contended that Ron Paul does not believe the federal government should define it in either way, that he believes they should be completely out of the business of certifying marriages. Since when does a religious ceremony that predates our government need the federal governments seal of approval?
I read some pieces written by Paul and it is generally accurate. Gay advocates and those on the right who want marriage only between a man and a women both should support the position of Ron Paul. He asserts that it is not the power of the federal government to decide either way and for everyone with one broad paint brush. What is right for those in San Francisco may not be right for those in Texas. If thousands of miles away the government decides for everyone they are going to violate someones liberty. Powers not specificly defined for the federal government are left to the state.
If you don’t want the ideals of Texas forced on you, then be consistent and don’t wish to force your ideals on them. The most common sense approach to ensuring liberty for all.
(Im using these states as examples only, nothing intended)
Ron Paul said:
“Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.”
His point is one of being against unnecesary government intervention. Invention for your side…or invention for theirs.
For our gay readers and those who support same sex marriage, which I generally do as well, here is some more of Dr. Paul’s words.
“If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. ”
Ron Paul is not voting against the liberty of gay individuals to practice the religious right of marriage, he is voting against the federal governments right to force anyone to adhere to another states decisions.
This means he is also votiong against other states outlawing your local decisions.
He was letting the states decide, which in turn means he supports your states right to support gay marriage. This also means that if Texas outlaws gay marriage, Ron Paul supports your states right to not agree with that as well.
His position is one of personal liberty and more localized decisions which in turn better serve more local cities desires and local populations wants and needs.
While his personal view seems to be that he does not personally feel same sex marriage is right for him, what liberals, gay voters and the left should respect is that he is consistant in his belief that for or against gay marriage in your state you should not have a one size fits all federal law forced on you.
If the Christian right wanted to pass a ban on gay marriage in all 50 states, liberals would be strongly against it. Those same liberals would find that Ron Paul is with them in his belief that the federal government should not force this on them.
If the left wanted a federal law forcing gay marriage on all states, he would be in their corner.
Ron Paul is the only candidate pure and consistent in his every view, and those on both sides of this issue would benefit from his view of not forcing the left or the right’s ideals on everyone.
State rights are the only way to achieve the liberty that is right for your state.
If gay voters want the government to stay out of their personal lifestyle choices, they should also want it to stay out of the choices of others. Liberty is not given by the government being involved, it is only taken.

+1

Prince Of Dorkness

WaveRyder wrote:

why should the govt have anything to do with our sexuality and who we choose to form relationships with? Ron Paul sure doesnt support that. But its obvious you let your sexuality define you.

Ah.. the "why can't you just pipe down and be a person" argument.

yeah, I get that one a lot.

why should they?

Well... married couples are legally and immediately each other's next of kin. There are no ways that gay couples get this. We can have living wills and legal contracts but families can, and often do, fight to have those over-turned. Married couples can sponsor each other as family members for green cards and immigration rights. We have no way to do that.

I should be the person to make medical decisions in his behalf if he can't. Right now... I can't.

We pay over $6000 more in taxes than married straight couples,

there are over 1500 rights, protections, responsibilities and privileges that married couples get at the federal level. And I can tell you now that if Ron Paul suggested doing away with them, even his followers would cry blue murder.

So spare me the "you're letting your sexuality define you."

No... I'm fighting for the rights of my family.

(but while we on the subject... Ron Paul is married... to a woman... wears a wedding ring... why is he letting his sexuality define him?)

Prince Of Dorkness

WaveRyder wrote:

and what's wrong with fruit?

really?

You thought I wanted to joke about that?

Would you also tell Rosa Parks to 'stop making such a fuss.. the back of the bus is where all the fun happens anyway?"

Prince Of Dorkness

Wilds wrote:

Since when does a religious ceremony that predates our government need the federal governments seal of approval?

who said anything about a religious ceremony?

Why would you think i'd want one of those?

I want a civil marriage.. the kind you get at city hall. The kind Britney Spears gets while drunk in Vegas.

I want, and deserve, all the same rights and legal protections as you.

And I'll settle for nothing less... and no amount of trying to change the subject or say I'm "forcing my views on you" will change that.

Prince Of Dorkness

Wilds wrote:

If gay voters want the government to stay out of their personal lifestyle choices, they should also want it to stay out of the choices of others. Liberty is not given by the government being involved, it is only taken.

[/quote]


WOW... that's quite a pile of bullshit.

I don't recall gay voters sponsoring a bill to invalidate straight marriages. Ever.

And being gay is neither a "lifestyle" or a "choice."

Oddly enough.... Christianity is both. :(

pjl44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

It's just the worst case scenario of what political discourse has turned into that bums me out. Debate policy all day long, as that's how we learn. But this idea of attacking straw men, making bizarre accusations, and just lobbing hate...ugh.

Meh.

That tends to happen when every debate has a big section where all the candidates argue over which one of them hates me the most... the one who has a government-funded clinic that aims to "cure" me, the one who supports bringing back the Texas law where I'd get thrown in jail for having sex in my bedroom, the one who says on a battlefield I'd be more interested in blowing you than fighting, the one who says that a child would be better having a father in prison and mother in a drug rehab clinic than me as a parent, the one who blames me for the Tsunami in Jakarta or the one who would call me a "fruit" (Ron Paul being the "fruit" one, by the way).

Yes... I know... that POD guy just talks so much about "gay this" and "gay that" all the time... can't he see there are bigger issues to YOU? and it's all about YOU, isn't it?

The fact that I get a vote just like you must be so... demoralising.

Don't worry... my community only accounts for about 2% of the population. Although that makes it a bit confusing as to how about 25% of the debate is about us and how to take more away from us than has already been taken.

Had no idea you were gay. That has nothing to do with it; I was addressing your hate. If you've endured hard times for that, I certainly empathize, but don't project your bigotry on to me or anyone else. Libertarians and Greens are far more friendly to your cause than either major party, so I'd suggest not shitting on someone's lawn then screaming you're a victim.

Prince Of Dorkness

pjl44 wrote:

Had no idea you were gay. That has nothing to do with it; I was addressing your hate. If you've endured hard times for that, I certainly empathize, but don't project your bigotry on to me or anyone else. Libertarians and Greens are far more friendly to your cause than either major party, so I'd suggest not shitting on someone's lawn then screaming you're a victim.

sadly the reality for me is that it's got EVERYTHING to do with it.

Trust me I wish it didn't.

If you think I enjoy having people roll their eyes the moment I stand up for my family's rights and protections, you're wrong. I don't. It's one of the reasons I stopped posting here for months.

Libertarians may be more friendly in theory... Greens absolutely. But neither have a hope in hell of winning an election and I'm in the unhappy position of choosing the least of two evils. I wish I had the luxury of having the choices you do.

And first... I did not shit on my own lawn... the gay community hasn't attacked itself, we didn't write prop 8, we didn't create DADT or DOMA, we didn't propose laws that make it legal to bully gay kids to death so long as you're doing it for 'religious reasons' as it's happened in Michigan and Alabama in the last three months.

Don't claim that it was us who created the problem.

And second... I am not "screaming" that I'm a "victim." I'm standing up for myself and my family. There's nothing more annoying and frustrating than having to endure the hatred and attacks that our community has to ensure and then when we fight for equality, to be told we're "screaming that we're the victim."

If you think you're convincing me to just give up my desire for equality... you're not.

And talking about my "bigotry." That's pretty rich.

pjl44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

Had no idea you were gay. That has nothing to do with it; I was addressing your hate. If you've endured hard times for that, I certainly empathize, but don't project your bigotry on to me or anyone else. Libertarians and Greens are far more friendly to your cause than either major party, so I'd suggest not shitting on someone's lawn then screaming you're a victim.

sadly the reality for me is that it's got EVERYTHING to do with it.

Trust me I wish it didn't.

If you think I enjoy having people roll their eyes the moment I stand up for my family's rights and protections, you're wrong. I don't. It's one of the reasons I stopped posting here for months.

Libertarians may be more friendly in theory... Greens absolutely. But neither have a hope in hell of winning an election and I'm in the unhappy position of choosing the least of two evils. I wish I had the luxury of having the choices you do.

And first... I did not shit on my own lawn... the gay community hasn't attacked itself, we didn't write prop 8, we didn't create DADT or DOMA, we didn't propose laws that make it legal to bully gay kids to death so long as you're doing it for 'religious reasons' as it's happened in Michigan and Alabama in the last three months.

Don't claim that it was us who created the problem.

And second... I am not "screaming" that I'm a "victim." I'm standing up for myself and my family. There's nothing more annoying and frustrating than having to endure the hatred and attacks that our community has to ensure and then when we fight for equality, to be told we're "screaming that we're the victim."

If you think you're convincing me to just give up my desire for equality... you're not.

And talking about my "bigotry." That's pretty rich.

Didn't say your own lawn. Didn't say you (collectively) created any problems, but that you (individually) are creating problems. Fully support your equality; it shouldn't be a desire, as it's a basic human right. But why would you care to comprehend/ask any of that? Clearly it's just easier to say insulting/inaccurate things about a group of people and then insult and project further when you're called out on it. Sound familiar?

Prince Of Dorkness

pjl44 wrote:

Didn't say your own lawn. Didn't say you (collectively) created any problems, but that you (individually) are creating problems.

Or am I just reacting to them?

Clearly it's just easier to say insulting/inaccurate things about a group of people and then insult and project further when you're called out on it. Sound familiar?

Yeah. Very familiar. I hear it for about 1/3 of the Republican debates aimed at my community. And Ron Paul takes part, I should add.

pjl44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Libratarianism is about freedom.

The freedom to fuck over anyone and everyone you can with no consequences or accountability.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The facist will help a little old lady across the street. The libertarian will push her in front of the car and steal her purse.

Creating them.

Prince Of Dorkness

pjl44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Libratarianism is about freedom.

The freedom to fuck over anyone and everyone you can with no consequences or accountability.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The facist will help a little old lady across the street. The libertarian will push her in front of the car and steal her purse.

Creating them.

clearly the second one is a joke (and you could tell that if you hadn't just lopped off the last line and removed the rest of the post which was OBVIOUSLY me being sarcastic, although I do agree with the analogy.

The first I stand by 100% and say I believe completely. I've spoken to make libertarians who are almost sociopathic in their care for no on but themselves. One former proud libertarian co-worker of mine was one of the most bitter people I knew.

I found out that his family used to be very rich and he was a trust fund kid... they were in tobacco and after many lawsuits against the industry, they lost it all. He very openly said that he didn't have any qualms about how his family knowingly sold a product that they knew would kill people, lied to the public for years and intentionally made it MORE addictive. He said if anyone was "dumb enough to get addicted, we were smart enough to make a profit off off that."

He wasn't the only one.

One of the pop culture things Libertarians seem to go on about the most is Ayn Rand' books, particularly Atlas Shrugged which is all about "self interest" and only doing things if there's something in it for them.

Just been my experience. Yes, I'm more defensive and often I go on the offense when it comes to political debate. Just how I am. Always have been and always will be.

inlet13

hmmmm...

I didn't realize this was a thread about gay rights. That's probably because it wasn't. Until... um... one person, who pretty much talks about gay rights and porn in every single thread, entered and made it the subject of the thread.

No "derailing" going on here in this MT thread... just look away.

Ugh. This place rocks.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

hmmmm...

I didn't realize this was a thread about gay rights.

don't be silly.. it's not.

But it IS about a particular Libertarian candidate and I assumed it was ok for us all to discuss our opinions of his stances and how those affect us personally. I originally said I felt that he was only going to do anything if he himself would personally benefit because that's what I see as the Libertarian way.

People asked where that came from and I was too happy to tell them.

I'm so sorry if my talking about how politics affects me personally in the political forum. Would that be more appropriate in the one where we trade our memorabilia?

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Libratarianism is about freedom.

The freedom to fuck over anyone and everyone you can with no consequences or accountability.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The facist will help a little old lady across the street. The libertarian will push her in front of the car and steal her purse.

Creating them.

clearly the second one is a joke (and you could tell that if you hadn't just lopped off the last line and removed the rest of the post which was OBVIOUSLY me being sarcastic, although I do agree with the analogy.

The first I stand by 100% and say I believe completely. I've spoken to make libertarians who are almost sociopathic in their care for no on but themselves. One former proud libertarian co-worker of mine was one of the most bitter people I knew.

I found out that his family used to be very rich and he was a trust fund kid... they were in tobacco and after many lawsuits against the industry, they lost it all. He very openly said that he didn't have any qualms about how his family knowingly sold a product that they knew would kill people, lied to the public for years and intentionally made it MORE addictive. He said if anyone was "dumb enough to get addicted, we were smart enough to make a profit off off that."

He wasn't the only one.

One of the pop culture things Libertarians seem to go on about the most is Ayn Rand' books, particularly Atlas Shrugged which is all about "self interest" and only doing things if there's something in it for them.

Just been my experience. Yes, I'm more defensive and often I go on the offense when it comes to political debate. Just how I am. Always have been and always will be.

Oh man, just look at your own stereotyping, etc. it's pretty sad.

Anyhow, I do wish that the republican party would remove their collective head out of their ass and move away from religious, hateful but bags. The repubs can be so right about so many things, but miss so big on such a big deal. The dems have their own iffy too.

It's just dumb that we even have to discuss this issue. So many real issues without such straightforward (no pun intended) answers to be worked out.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

hmmmm...

I didn't realize this was a thread about gay rights.

don't be silly.. it's not.

But it IS about a particular Libertarian candidate and I assumed it was ok for us all to discuss our opinions of his stances and how those affect us personally. I originally said I felt that he was only going to do anything if he himself would personally benefit because that's what I see as the Libertarian way.

People asked where that came from and I was too happy to tell them.

I'm so sorry if my talking about how politics affects me personally in the political forum. Would that be more appropriate in the one where we trade our memorabilia?

I'm not being silly. You turn attention away from the thread's purpose and point it towards yourself and gay rights. I was waiting patiently for you to tell us all for the 100,000th time you do porn. I'll say it for everyone... I don't care. I do care about the thread. So, to me, what you did is derail... and this isn't a one time thing, you do it consistently. I don't post in most threads, but I read them. Your posts aren't very informative, they are similar to what you did here.

I feel like you're welcome to discuss anything here. You can do what you're doing, but I don't have to agree with it or like it. Broaden that last sentence of mine and that, in and of itself, clearly will bother you for the rest of your life... or so it seems. It's deeper than a message board thread. It's your life. I say get over it. Your not changing hearts here with your posts (but I doubt that's what you want). Instead, it seems like baiting... or better yet trolling, which are popular words in these parts lately.

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

Oh man, just look at your own stereotyping, etc. it's pretty sad.

Sorry... just going from my own observations and personal experience. Not sure what else I'm supposed to use. A Ouija Board maybe?

Anyhow, I do wish that the republican party would remove their collective head out of their ass and move away from religious, hateful but bags.

The problem is that, and I mean this, I think their ideas are so unpopular and (I think) totally unworkable that they need to have their social wedge issues. For as long as I can remember, Republicans have teased up sexism, racism, classism, xenophobia, homophobia and religion to get votes. Maybe Democrats do that too but I don't remember anything from Democrats like the Ken Mehlman anti-marraige equality constitutional amendments that went onto the ballots in swing states in the 2004 presidential election. Even Ken Mehlman has admitted that he did that just to get more extreme conservatives to the polls in the hopes that they'd vote for George W Bush since they were there anyway sticking it to the gays.

Sorry... I know you tire of me talking about it but it's part of our national history and I think it's relevant to this topic. Those wedge issues are what always put them over the top. Seldom economic issues.

It's just dumb that we even have to discuss this issue.

I agree and I tire of having to do it. You think YOURE sick and tired of hearing from me? Think about how annoying it is to have to be such a one-issue person.

Sadly... if federal immigration laws aren't changed, my family lives under the constant threat of my Canadian husband having to move back to Canada and the government splitting us up.

People say that Ron Paul is against the government poking into your private lives... well... the government could split up my family and he supports the law that would do it.

So I have to keep bring annoying on the topic, hoping that either (a) it sinks in and more people agree with doing something that helps my family even if there's nothing in it for them or (b) you just pass it to shut me the F up.

I'm good either way.

Wilds

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Wilds wrote:

If gay voters want the government to stay out of their personal lifestyle choices, they should also want it to stay out of the choices of others. Liberty is not given by the government being involved, it is only taken.

WOW... that's quite a pile of bullshit.

I don't recall gay voters sponsoring a bill to invalidate straight marriages. Ever.

And being gay is neither a "lifestyle" or a "choice."

Oddly enough.... Christianity is both. :(

Well you are quoting me on two counts, where my post was quoting someone else's article.

I think you misunderstand my position. I'm 100% in favor of equal rights for all. I think California is headed in the right direction. Going to my good friends wedding, Jeff and David, was amazing and as it now stands they are legally married in California.

I'm for the Federal government getting out of our personal lives as much as possible. Marriage will be legal for all soon, and it will take the Supreme Court to make it happen at some point.

Which it will soon.

I think with that said, Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands we need less Federal tampering not more. His idea is to get out of the regulation racket.

I'm not sure how long it will take the Texas's and Louisianna's of the world to embrace all as equals as Massachusetts, (soon California again), and other States who honor marriage for all who choose, equally.

I would say that whatever your views on Gay marriage I'm probably on board 100% with those views. I want it, it is completely 100% the same gay or straight. You just think Paul will move to hurt progress made, and I think he will get the fed out, but other means will move it forward just as quickly and without the garbage that big government brings with it.

I simple think it needs to happen through different channels then the Federal Government being the regulator.

I think the states and Court system, can and will handle it the way it deserves to be handled. 100% equal for all as it should be.

As for Christianity. I'm more of a pastafarian.

Prince Of Dorkness

Wilds wrote:

As for Christianity. I'm more of a pastafarian.

Cool. I'm a Vegan.

Can I offer you some Primavera?

On everything else you posted... thanks... I know that I have quite a chip on my shoulder and yes... I have been known to shoot first and then hurl sarcasm later.

Which is weird, cuz I'm usually a relatively nice guy.

I would like to think that Ron Paul would find a way to make progress go forward but I've been promised things before that have never materialized and with this president... slow as it may be... I see progress and don't want to stop it to let someone else have a turn.

Make sense?

Wilds

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Wilds wrote:

As for Christianity. I'm more of a pastafarian.

Cool. I'm a Vegan.

Can I offer you some Primavera?

On everything else you posted... thanks... I know that I have quite a chip on my shoulder and yes... I have been known to shoot first and then hurl sarcasm later.

Which is weird, cuz I'm usually a relatively nice guy.

I would like to think that Ron Paul would find a way to make progress go forward but I've been promised things before that have never materialized and with this president... slow as it may be... I see progress and don't want to stop it to let someone else have a turn.

Make sense?

Totally understand your point of view in terms of what you have experienced. We are at our last Civil right.

Equality for all regardless of who we are attracted to, (fall in love with), want to raise a family with, all from birth.

I think we are winning that right as we speak, especially as the younger generation comes of age. The internet and social awareness of this basic right are a snowball that is not going to be stopped.

I've just come to realize that all of the candidates are the same. They all want big government, endless war (through ever increasing military budgets) and they all answer to Corporations through donations, lobbying, and I feel that Ron Paul is at least honest about his positions and actually has a real desire to bring back liberty and repeal a lot of the garbage that was thrown out there.

It sucks because there is a ton of shit that I don't support about him.

But he seems to be anti-war. The first and only candidate that I've seen that wants to go away from Ruling the world and it's resources.

I actually like social programs, but don't think they are manageable from a Federal Standpoint. Let Local governments take care of it.

And I used to like the idea of affirmative action, and welfare programs, but now feel that those types of programs hurt the people they are meant to help.

And at the Federal level the bureaucratic and ineffectiveness are too much for me to handle. Perhaps those programs could be better managed at a more local level.

One thing that Ron Paul said about Big Government and lobbyists that I thought was rather insightful.

You can't stop lobbyists, they have a constitutional right to petition government. But if you shrink the Federal Government and take away all the things they lobby for, then there can be less corruption. Because there is little to try and steal/influence.

When government controls everything then everything can be manipulated as it is now.

With all that said it is a leap of faith to think that if Ron Paul got into office that he could accomplish even 20% of what he talks about.

I think that is a good thing, because he gets a bit extreme. He won't be able to get rid of all the things that bog us down, but he will make a dent.

Every other candidate will be business as usual. War as usual. Taxation as usual. Spending as usual. Big Government as usual. None are different, Republican or Democrat.

WaveRyder

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

and what's wrong with fruit?

really?

You thought I wanted to joke about that?

Would you also tell Rosa Parks to 'stop making such a fuss.. the back of the bus is where all the fun happens anyway?"

im just saying....i enjoy apples and oranges as much as the next guy