Rand Paul Says He Didn't Think Obama's Views 'Could Get Any Gayer'

reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior


I guess you could say Ron Paul's campaign is a long shot, but he has won like 11 states delegate wise and as of now Romney has only won like 14 or 15 I think.

Officially Ron has 100+ delegates and Romney 300+ the 700 some that the media are giving him in their projections aren't awarded until the convention. Romney is really honestly not that far ahead of Paul yet and Paul has been the one winning lately.

Also what is most funny about this whole Obama gay marriage thing is that he is so cowardly in his "evolution" and dems are too damn stupid to see it. He came out in support of gay marriage (his third position on the subject), but his solution was to leave it up to the states. So he offered that in hopes dems would think he was going to do something about it, but he isn't he is just saying he is ok with it. His position of leaving it to the states is the EXACT same Ron Paul has had for years and Dems hated it. Ron Paul wasn't being a coward by holding that stance though because his personal religious beliefs make him an opponent of gay marriage, BUT he is a champion of liberty so he chooses (the same as Obama now chooses) to leave it to the states to decide (meaning it will be legal some places and other places not) rather than actively opposing it to gain the support of religious people and his party. So what is more ballsy saying you support something but not doing anything to show it, or saying you are personally opposed to something, but allowing it out of respect to other people's liberties.

Ron Paul 2012

Rand just made a horrible joke here. I don't think it was even unP.C., I think he was making such a bad obscure joke, that he didn't realize that the more obvious interpretation would be really unP.C. and make him sound like a middle school boy.

Originally posted by MeesterB

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

The thing with using the golden rule to persuade people to allow gay marriage is that I have no problem with someone keeping me from getting gay married.
so... I keep gays from getting married and someone keeps me from getting gay married.... deal.

No, we'll just tell you that you are not allowed to marry the one you love. You now have to marry someone you don't love and aren't attracted to in the least. And if you are already married to the one you love - your marriage is now considered null and void - too bad, so sad. THAT is how the golden rule is applied here.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I think anyone should be able to be married and the government should have absolutely no say in it whatsoever. With religious freedom how come there hasn't been a gay christian church that has marriage that is free to be practiced. The government has absolutely no say in this matter and if they would get out straight and gay people alike could both get married without having to pay the government all the money it costs (which is more b.s.)

The thing is.. Obama's stance is the exact same one Ron Paul has had for yeaaaars. Why am I the only one pointing this out?

Ron Paul 2012

reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior



I'm honestly not seeing what he did wrong here. Mr Obama is allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage, and Mr. Paul should be allowed the exact same right to an opinion I would think.

Guess you are only allowed the opinion if yours is the popular one.

Originally posted by jssaylor2007
reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior

 

I'm honestly not seeing what he did wrong here. Mr Obama is allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage, and Mr. Paul should be allowed the exact same right to an opinion I would think.

Guess you are only allowed the opinion if yours is the popular one.

Mr. Obama's opinion involved giving rights to American citizens; Mr. Paul's opinion involved taking away rights from American citizens. Mr. Obama took the subject seriously; Mr. Paul made a (poor) joke of the subject. See the difference?

What's the big deal? They say one in every four men is gay, so there must be one in my group of friends. I hope it's Michael, he's super cute.

i always thought rand paul was a little "light in the loafers"....maybe he had some type of "experience" when he was younger. i always suspect people that crow the loudest about gays.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by jssaylor2007
reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior

 

I'm honestly not seeing what he did wrong here. Mr Obama is allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage, and Mr. Paul should be allowed the exact same right to an opinion I would think.

Guess you are only allowed the opinion if yours is the popular one.

Mr. Obama's opinion involved giving rights to American citizens; Mr. Paul's opinion involved taking away rights from American citizens. Mr. Obama took the subject seriously; Mr. Paul made a (poor) joke of the subject. See the difference?

now now...don't try using that stupid thing called logic...it really spooks them, then they get vindictive and nasty

Originally posted by jimmyx
i always thought rand paul was a little "light in the loafers"....maybe he had some type of "experience" when he was younger. i always suspect people that crow the loudest about gays.

Could be, my wife forced me to have gay sex last night. Scented candles, heated massage oils, you know the kind of thing.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Mr. Obama's opinion involved giving rights to American citizens; Mr. Paul's opinion involved taking away rights from American citizens.

I understand the context you are conveying -- but it is scary when you use that President X is giving rights.... Those Rights (the right to Life and to Happiness) all pre-existed President Obama and Senator Paul.

Hence why I take exception to your "logic" as one poster stated. And not to defend the poor pun, but how is stating such "taking" away rights? How is Presidnet Obama saying what he did "give" rights?

It still is a control issue and the Government is laughing.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Mr. Obama's opinion involved giving rights to American citizens; Mr. Paul's opinion involved taking away rights from American citizens. Mr. Obama took the subject seriously; Mr. Paul made a (poor) joke of the subject. See the difference?

The context in which both these politicians are discussing marriage is in a "civil rights" context. The discussion is not at all about people who assert their unalienable right to be married and decline to enter any licensing scheme in order to be married, recognizing that the sanctity of marriage is not predicated by some licensing scheme, they are talking about people who want the "civil right" to a marriage license.

In that regard, in regards to "civil rights" these are legal rights that are indeed granted, and what can be granted legally can be taken away legally. This whole game is political and has nothing at all to do with unalienable rights. No one needs a license to be married. No just government could lawfully prevent two people from marrying each other outside of their licensing schemes. No just government has the lawful authority to declare such a marriage unlawful. This is a shell game where all the players are willingly involved in the con.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

People still use the word gay in that context.

That's why I don't get it. There isn't really comical aspect to the "joke". It came out as some sort of backhanded diss on gay people with a giggle at the end of it.

I remember back in the 90s where all the young people used "ghay" all the time and it drove me nuts. I'm sure about 2 seconds after he said what he said he wished he didn't....

Rand constantly seems to be proving himself quite the tool.

I don't think his Dad notices it.

Originally posted by MiddleClassWarrior
So much for individual liberty eh Rand?

Hi OP
So much for individual liberty?

I don't get it
What does this have to do with individual liberty?

I think you may have said that just for the sake of saying it

reply to post by kaylaluv


Wait wait Obama is giving NO ONE any rights.
He said he approved of gay marriage or whatever, but he didn't say he was going to allow gay marriage. I think you need to read up some more. Obama's announcement were only words. His actualy solution was to take the same stance as Ron Paul saying leave it up to the states. It kills me that people are giving Obama all this praise for doing what amounts to absolutely NOTHING. Also Rand Paul took away nothing in his words he just made himself look stupid which is a shame because his dad is doing well and doesn'd deserve that ignorance by association stuff.

Just don't confuse Rand Paul for Ron Paul, because Ron Paul's solution for marriage equality is the exact same as president Obama's except Ron Paul actually means it.

I think Rand might unfortunately be playing the to the regular republican crowd rather than following in his dad's footsteps which is a shame.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Wait wait Obama is giving NO ONE any rights.
He said he approved of gay marriage or whatever, but he didn't say he was going to allow gay marriage. I think you need to read up some more. Obama's announcement were only words. His actualy solution was to take the same stance as Ron Paul saying leave it up to the states. It kills me that people are giving Obama all this praise for doing what amounts to absolutely NOTHING. Also Rand Paul took away nothing in his words he just made himself look stupid which is a shame because his dad is doing well and doesn'd deserve that ignorance by association stuff.

Just don't confuse Rand Paul for Ron Paul, because Ron Paul's solution for marriage equality is the exact same as president Obama's except Ron Paul actually means it.

I think Rand might unfortunately be playing the to the regular republican crowd rather than following in his dad's footsteps which is a shame.

edit on 14-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I did not say that Obama was giving rights. I said that his opinion involved giving rights, as opposed to an opinion that involves taking away rights. My opinion is that gay marriage should be legalized. My opinion involves giving rights to gays, but I am not actually giving anyone any rights with my opinion. See the difference? I didn't say anything about Ron Paul, this thread was about what Rand Paul said.

reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior


welp the apple doesn't fall far from the tree

I wonder if Ron taught him all this hate bashing

Originally posted by AaronWilson
Yup. Stupid indeed.


People will now somehow connect this to Ron Paul.

We know who RAN paul gets his material
from, his father runs the show..

Telling me G.w. bush didn't do it either..

Get a grip people.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MeesterB

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

The thing with using the golden rule to persuade people to allow gay marriage is that I have no problem with someone keeping me from getting gay married.
so... I keep gays from getting married and someone keeps me from getting gay married.... deal.

No, we'll just tell you that you are not allowed to marry the one you love. You now have to marry someone you don't love and aren't attracted to in the least. And if you are already married to the one you love - your marriage is now considered null and void - too bad, so sad. THAT is how the golden rule is applied here.

Your application of the golden rule implies that heterosexual and homosexual loves are equal, which they aren't based on the simple truth that heterosexual couples can procreate.

Hopefully it'll be a matter left to the states.

Originally posted by MeesterB

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MeesterB

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

The thing with using the golden rule to persuade people to allow gay marriage is that I have no problem with someone keeping me from getting gay married.
so... I keep gays from getting married and someone keeps me from getting gay married.... deal.

No, we'll just tell you that you are not allowed to marry the one you love. You now have to marry someone you don't love and aren't attracted to in the least. And if you are already married to the one you love - your marriage is now considered null and void - too bad, so sad. THAT is how the golden rule is applied here.

Your application of the golden rule implies that heterosexual and homosexual loves are equal, which they aren't based on the simple truth that heterosexual couples can procreate.

Hopefully it'll be a matter left to the states.

The golden rule should apply to ALL, not just to those we deem worthy of it. Jesus didn't say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.... unless they're gay, then you can trash them all you want." There are heterosexuals who can't procreate -- their love isn't equal? People get married for many different reasons, some of which have NOTHING to do with procreation.

Hopefully it will be a matter left to the U.S. Supreme Court, like interracial marriage, which now is not allowed to be banned in any state.