Ron Paul 5-9-12 on Obamas Gay Marriage Statement...... I Cannot Disagree With This!!

Of course the Paul puppets will agree with Paul, if he came out tomorrow and said that locking up liberals and gassing them is a good idea, these people would agree with him like he was speaking gospel.

Paul just deflected this issue by saying he doesn't think the state should be involved. But it's always been involved, Marriage is and always has been a union recognized by the state. And I don't just mean since America was founded, Marriage has been a union recognized by the state since Monarchies were invented. It settles so many rights and responsibilities, inheritances, titles, land, right of succession, etc. That it is an issue.

The reason it's an issue, and the reason that Paul is wrong is that there are certain legalities that the state affords legally married couples. These same legalities are not afforded to equally committed gay couples. That's the issue.

The biggest hypocrisy of Paul is that for someone who doesn't like government as much as he claims, he sure as hell has been in it a long time.

reply to post by Misoir


huh...

I really thought you were joking.

Government has always been about enforcing property rights and collecting taxes in the form of wheat from the very get go.

You are being silly. Code of Hamarabi ring some bells?

The church was not the government, and didn't exist way back in the day. Your ignorance hurts my brain all the way through the screen.

Oh and I completely agree with outkast. This may be the only time I do, so I wanted to put that out there. Has everyone forgotten that this Great Nation was founded with the Seperation of Church and State from the get go. Civil union laws should be in place to protect people's rights, any peoples. Next the Church then decides what the heck it wants to do and leaves me the eff alone, until I decide to maybe get married some day.

Your "morality" is apalling... You don't even understand the Bible. Judge not lest ye be judged. You're stepping all over God's job, and he already asked you not so nicely to stay out of it. Not that I believe in what I just wrote, but you should. Lol a judgeing god, who judges you for other people's actions... hahahahaha oh you're funny.

Originally posted by HauntWok


The reason it's an issue, and the reason that Paul is wrong is that there are certain legalities that the state affords legally married couples. These same legalities are not afforded to equally committed gay couples. That's the issue.

Paul wants the government to control the legal rights.
He doesn't want the government controlling religious issues.
Government control civil union rights for all couples,
and then Churches marry people. Simple.

As in you shouldn't be able to get "Married" before a judge.
You should only be Married before God.

Seperation of Church and State.
We have come a long way since the Governance of the past.

Of course the Paul puppets will agree with Paul, if he came out tomorrow and said that locking up liberals and gassing them is a good idea, these people would agree with him like he was speaking gospel.

I have always had these views since I was 4, and became conscious of this issue. Found out about paul what 15 years later? You really believe Paul people are Blind followers? They wouldn't have been able to ever like Ron Paul in the first place if all they did was follow. Cause they'ed have to follow, and no one was talking about Ron Paul, so logically they would be more like oh say You?

Easy to call people blind followers when you don't want to believe or debate people's opinions who disagree with you. Ever thought about it like this. We actually AGREE with Ron Paul. There I said it, and I'm not lying..

Originally posted by GezinhoKiko

if i was American i would be proud to call him my president

Hell, I'm from Europe and i would be very proud of the Americans if their president was RP.

reply to post by Jakes51

That is their sovereign right as a state.

i'm pretty sure a state does not have the right to create bigoted laws that go against the constitution. If the majority of people in north Carolina decided to ban blacks from voting, and it passed, would you say that's the states right

Oh, no, I have a much better example, oh surely I do.

Lets say Texas, or Arizona, or any southern state, holds a vote and the majority decide that since Hispanics dominate the populous, whites are no longer allowed to get married or vote.

You'd probably have a HUGE problem with that, but, it was a democratic vote and the states right, correct?

Then again, I really don't care, because it's not about the states right, it's about individual American's right to not be discriminated against.

Yet, we have people here, applauding just that, peoples rights being restricted for no other reason than some people feel icky about "the gays".

Amazingly enough, I'm going to agree with Outkast.... The government should just rename it civil union for all and be done with it. No gay wants to destroy marriage, or destroy YOUR marriage, they just want the same rights they'd have if they weren't gay.

There is no rational argument against it. Anyone thinking they can argue against peoples BASIC RIGHTS is a bigot of the worst order, because they are too thicskulled to see how insane they are.

Originally posted by Dustytoad

The church was not the government, and didn't exist way back in the day. Your ignorance hurts my brain all the way through the screen.

That statement is a bit of ignorant in and by itself, especially since you follow this statement up by stating that the church was the government.

Religion and Governent has always been hand in hand, and it's not just about sentiment in your own bill "In God we trust",

Originally, Rome was only open to aristocrats. And the Pope in Rome, as well as Constantinobel, were royal blood. And all royal bloodline, has their own "roman" family name, which is a proof of their "royal roman bloodline". Look it up ...

The seperation of church and state, became de-facto as the church became richer than the royalties. The church became owner of many states, and priests and monks, which were not of royal bloodline, could even rival the power of the royalties as a result. Basically, because they had a strong hold in the heart of the people. The same applies all over the world. Irrespective of where you are, this is true everywhere ...

The church, according to the royalties, became "infected" by peasants ... and that is why the choice of separating state and church.

These issues, have nothing to do with your interrests as a peasant ... as a peasant you pay your taxes to the landowner, that today is the government ... and this government is NOT YOU.

Your opposition against the church, is therefore a bit assenine ... because the church represented the peasants salvation, both in soul and actual life. The "bell" on the church is not there to call you in for mess, but originally it is there to call you in, in case of emergency. Which is why the church had it's "sanctuary", which meant that anyone stepping in there, could not be harmed as long as he was there ... which bothered the royalties for centuries, and still does.

The only reason the government cares about marriage in the first place is because of tax reasons. The government doesn't care about people's silly marriages. If it did, it would do more to promote marriage gay or straight, but it doesn't. Marriage debates in politics are to get votes and keep people sidetracked with these silly arguments with each other and keep people at odds with one another. Time for people to awaken their minds and to realize you are being manipulated and kept busy with issues like this, while the pundits pillage the village.

Come on, Who really cares. This gay marriage stuff is a wedge issue. It’s a privilege to even be able to debate this. A privilege we will lose if we don’t address the real issues the world is facing, this collapsing economy. The economy is in dire straits. We lose the economy and everyone is going to have a lot larger problem then gay marriages and abortions.

We are on the brink of a global economic collapse, real USA unemployment at +20%, real inflation at 10% and all the MSM can talk about is underwear bombers and gay marriages instead of the nearly imminent coming 2nd dark ages.

Am I the only one…

of course RP agrees or rather is unable to disagree -
"FREEDOM is TOLERANCE." RP

Click here for more information.

Stars and flags for posting the video.

I cannot agree more.

Why do some people feel compelled to meddle in the personal lives of others? What are they afraid of? My brother-in-law is a staunch Romney supporter and he asked me why I support Ron Paul (we have known each other for over 25 years) and I simply said "because he wants people to live free and mind their own business".

This whole thing about gay rights and "republican" conservatism is an oxymoron. True conservatives don't think the state should be involved in personal matters..."stay out of the bedroom". What we have in the modern Christian Coalition/Moral movement is a group of people trying to apply their values on the rest of the world...this is NOT conservatism.

I put it this way....if you believe in a God, then it is his place to pass judgement on these things...not yours...leave the LGBT community alone...I personally am not qualified to judge them....

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Marriage in the eyes of the Government is a legal contract...not a religous act.

The government at some level, state or federal does need to be involved to set the legal rights and limits for the marriage contract for certain things such as taxes, next of kin, estates, etc.

I personally think the Government should stop issuing "Marriage" licenses and start issuing "Civil Union" licenses for all couples...gay or straight.

Thanks for calling me out...glad to know I'm on your mind so much.

OutKast, I don't get to praise you often, but I'll laud you for this as I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday after reading about the NC vote.

To me, MARRIAGE is a religious institution. For those so inclined, let them be married by a church of their choosing, and have the state consider this their civil union for legal purposes (no license required, etc., as I consider this a fundamental violation of the "render unto God the things that are God" teaching - as is, currently the churches render unto Caesar the things that are God's by requiring state permission to wed).

For everyone else NOT so inclined, let their state/local government issue civil union contracts upon request.

That said - under our current form of government, such things are legal - but I believe all *laws* regarding the restriction of marriage or union should be immediately challenged and shot down since ***what someone else does that does not directly affect us is NONE of our stinking business, and is a fundamental violation of the founding spirit of liberty in this nation***.

This is applicable to a whole host of issues:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson

I wish more "patriots" and "believers" would learn that lesson, as the same is - believe it or not - even taught in the bible. We 'judge' (poor translation, not actually referring to judgement as we think of it) those WITHIN the faith to help them stay the course. It's up to God to judge those outside.

Originally posted by Davian

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

I can not agree more with Paul, as usual. Is there anyone that can? If so that person is an obvious control freak and oppressor, a criminal to the people and humanity as a whole. A tyrant in the making.

So who can? Outkast Searcher can even you disagree with this?

Marriage in the eyes of the Government is a legal contract...not a religous act.

The government at some level, state or federal does need to be involved to set the legal rights and limits for the marriage contract for certain things such as taxes, next of kin, estates, etc.

I personally think the Government should stop issuing "Marriage" licenses and start issuing "Civil Union" licenses for all couples...gay or straight.

Thanks for calling me out...glad to know I'm on your mind so much.

After reading your posts for awhile I've come to the conclusion of the possibility that you suffer from an acute version of mental insanity...

did you have any reasoning or evidence behind this claim? or did you just call OS insane because he disagrees with you? i've been on here a couple years now and Outkast is no crazier than the rest of us friend. Talk sh#t IRL all you want, but please, this site is for actual discussion.

Let me stress this clearly.

Government applying a religious reason to ban gay marriage is violating the 4th amendment to the constitution.

Just because your religion is against gay marriage does not mean that another religion does.
And denying that belief violates the 4th.

Originally posted by grey580
Let me stress this clearly.

Government applying a religious reason to ban gay marriage is violating the 4th amendment to the constitution.

Just because your religion is against gay marriage does not mean that another religion does.
And denying that belief violates the 4th.

seems pretty cut and dry to me brother. live and let live.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Off topic on purpose.

You folks ever read your own threads. This is starting to sound like worship almost. Very much like how the most evil men in history got started.

Ron Paul is just a typical Libertarian who chose not to stay in his real Party. He's not a Messiah. I like Ron Paul but his groupies are starting to worry me some.

Originally posted by Misoir
The state has the right to legally enforce the proper definition of marriage upon society.

I think it's the people who have a right to decide what they want the state to enforce.
The state is made up of the citizens .. right??
If people want gay marriage (or gay civil unions) then the state should reflect that .. not stop it.

Wow, you can't disagree with the guy!

I just hope he isn't the false prophet we're warned about

reply to post by Dustytoad

Paul wants the government to control the legal rights.
He doesn't want the government controlling religious issues.
Government control civil union rights for all couples,
and then Churches marry people. Simple.

Civil unions aren't the same as marriage. Now I don't want the government to force churches to marry same sex couples, I wouldn't think that was right. But marriage is a long way from a civil union.

As in you shouldn't be able to get "Married" before a judge.
You should only be Married before God.

Then you would have to prove that God preformed your wedding ceremony. Which would mean that all typical church weddings would be null and void as God could not be proven to have presided over them.

You really believe Paul people are Blind followers?

In my opinion they are nothing short of cult members.

We actually AGREE with Ron Paul. There I said it, and I'm not lying..

I know you aren't lying, It wouldn't matter what Ron Paul said, you would agree with it. That's my point.

How can someone not like Dr. Paul? He's exactly what every American should be. He served the country, had a successful business(delivering babies), has a PHD; and fights for everyone's rights. He believes in maximum choice; isn't that what the founding fathers wanted? I think his head should be on Mount Rushmore. He is consistent, has no demons in his closet; been married 55 years. He is an all around great guy.