It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand Paul is for "gay contracts" not " gay marriage".

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
To this point in time, can you tell me any way that the president has had any impact either way on the issue of gay marriage? Does the office of president even deal with this issue?

Is the issue of gay marriage really even something that needs discussing in a presidential election?




posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Granite

Im just pushing buttons, Im not any way shape or form pro gov.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage



Is the issue of gay marriage really even something that needs discussing in a presidential election?

It is if you think it will help you get the Republican nomination.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

and how do you determine what "contract" is better. the whole competeing word doesnt make sense to me



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: American-philosopher
That's because your political BS meter is functioning properly.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Should I delete this thread, I hate to make the guy look bad when he is just trying to be president and playing that game ?



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Foderalover




Should I delete this thread,

You can't.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Foderalover
I did it before I mentally processed the article.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: caterpillage



Is the issue of gay marriage really even something that needs discussing in a presidential election?

It is if you think it will help you get the Republican nomination.


Yes, gay marriage is a talking point, brought up for election purposes. Much like the abortion debate. They serve well as a distraction to focus weak minds away from tough issues.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
"For Paul’s vision of equal rights for same-sex couples through contracts to become a reality, the first step would be have to be a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in June upholding state prohibitions on gay nuptials."

I don't like the sound of that.




posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Foderalover
Should I delete this thread, I hate to make the guy look bad when he is just trying to be president and playing that game ?


well you obviously had a point to make other wise you would not have taken the time to make this thread. Are you just trying to make a point about same sex marriage or????



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Foderalover

Don't feel bad, if he is just saying it to win votes then that needs to be shown as well.

a reply to: caterpillage

The president does have his hands in this matter and it should be discussed.
It is a major movement right now and people, who he would represent, need to know his stance on it.

Shoot same with abortion but that is not the point here.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80



The president does have his hands in this matter and it should be discussed. It is a major movement right now and people, who he would represent, need to know his stance on it.

And his stance is..."well, yes and no."
The President has nothing to do with it. The ball is in the court of the states. Until the SCOTUS says otherwise.


edit on 3/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: American-philosopher

I though it might be a good solution to a debate, but then I didn't feel it was important because its only an idea , only after I posted it.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Foderalover
You mean gay marriage or Rand Paul?



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
If he just wanted to change the name, whatever. I'm bi, I don't really care about a word, onward and upward and solve some bigger issues, Rand.

That's not what he's talking about here by the sounds of it. If he wants to send the entire thing through the Supreme Court again he's off my ticket . Totally ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Foderalover

Don't feel bad, if he is just saying it to win votes then that needs to be shown as well.

a reply to: caterpillage

The president does have his hands in this matter and it should be discussed.
It is a major movement right now and people, who he would represent, need to know his stance on it.

Shoot same with abortion but that is not the point here.


I'm not talking about any particular president, more like what power does the office of president have to decide the issue of gay marriage? Or for that matter abortion? Those are the two biggest reoccurring presidential non issues that come up. Every. Freaking. Time.

And every freaking time no matter who is in office, they loose complete interest in both those subjects until the next election cycle.

You are being played like a fine fiddle



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: FireflyStars




If he wants to send the entire thing through the Supreme Court again he's off my ticket

Well then...he's off your ticket because there is nothing the President can do about marriage. Gay or otherwise.

edit on 3/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nope but the POTUS has a massive amount of influence over a large citizenship and could sway the sheeple heavily to one side or the other.

That's a long, dark road to tread back down. :\



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Foderalover


The contract applies to equal marriage rights for gays with a "contract" instead of the word "marriage". I think he is trying to appeal to the right with wordplay or he wants the opposition to shut the hell up, but he claims he is offended by non traditional marriage, either way Im voting for the guy. I tried to close this thread so to not make the only half descent candidate look bad but cant.
www.washingtonblade.com...


Thanks for the link


I can't defend Paul on this at all. I don't support homosexuality due to my religious beliefs, but I don't understand why he thinks the term "marriage" is any more offensive than the term "contract"?

I believe Gay people should be able to get married. If they want to commit themselves to each other for life, why should anyone stop them? My only stipulation is that they not be allowed to do so in a church, and why should they want to?

I realize I am walking a fine line here, and I will probably offend both Christians and Neo-Liberals, but I don't care. I'm not here for the stars.

I don't understand Paul's position, AT ALL. I never really liked him anyways though, since he threw his own father under the bus for political reasons.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join