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

a reply to: Gryphon66

lol dont i know it

Drivers get classified by what kind of vehicle they want to drive. Why not just make it the same way regarding "marriage". The majority of it is for legal and tax purposes anyway. And all those individuals aware that their practiced religion is against a certain lifestyle then want to go against the flow? Go create your own religious doctrine and open a church. Religious beliefs need to stay the hell out of politics/law.

a reply to: sweets777

And just so you know i am guilty of saying things i dont really beliee just cause i know it pisses you all off lol

That's what's known as 'trolling'. Not exactly the kind of discussion I enjoy partaking in on ATS. Facebook has plenty of groups that welcome it. Perhaps you can entertain them?

xoxo

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

believe............... is a strong word i think i can discuss topics on here with out having to whole heartedly believe in them
now to know that what i will say will make people mad isnt trolling its just people are predictable .

I mean in all fairness what do you really believe.

I can almost sum my list up to just one thing the sun will come out tomorrow.
So am i not to discuss anything else but this ................the sun

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

and i never asked for anyone to partake in this with me .....but it is what this site is alll about free discussion
without fear.

a reply to: sweets777

I mean in all fairness what do you really believe.

I believe homosexuality isn't a choice.
I believe there is nothing immoral, unnatural, sinful, etc about being gay.
I believe gay people should be free to have legally recognized marriage.
I believe gay people can be excellent parents and raise healthy children.
I believe the Sun is real, but your god is not.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I believe that guy is a troll. Still waiting for an answer to my question.

Look at any basic history of LGBT rights ... here's a simple one LGBT History - Wiki

It isn't difficult to notice a few things:

1. Homosexuals have been around human society as long as there has been human society. Depictions of same-sex relationships are found in Neolithic cave art along with trans* depictions.

2. In Western European culture particularly in the last 2000 years, the Christian church along with associated states punished homosexuals (of which there must have been plenty) by mutilation, burning at the stake, any number of harsh punishments.

3. These punishments, imprisonments and so forth apparently did little to discourage homosexuality, as it has existed in human culture from the Neolithic to the Present.

In the face of that potential for horrible treatment ... why would anyone CHOOSE to be homosexual?

originally posted by: Foderalover
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.

Gosh, if I were politically powerful, like Rand, I could outlaw things that offend me, regardless of equal treatment under the law?

Rand Paul is not trying to appeal to the right, he's trying to appeal to everyone, by finding what he thinks is some middle ground between the left and right. Oh, honey, I love you! Let's get "in contract"!

So, gay people should be allowed to be "in contract", but not "married"... because it makes me feel all icky and I'm offended...

What do they call that when some people are offended by something, so change the language as not to offend others? Oh, yeah! Political Correctness! That's what he's practicing!

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

Wouldn't that be the same as a 'civil union'???
Sounds like he is just pandering like all politicians.

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

still you need both parts male and female

Not anymore.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Separate but Equal was rejected in American jurisprudence c. 1954.

It is a matter of personal freedom and equality under the law.

Why does someone's personal squeamishness become a factor in equal protection of the laws?

(Also, haven't we learned anything about the Presidential success of first-term Senators? Just sayin')

A scenario for two people to be married . A group of people find themselves on a isolated island and two of the surviving members want to marry .become husband and wife . Are they restricted because they have no courts, layers , judges ? No not at all because the two are married before God . But seeing how modern societies advance (if you want to call it that ) it may have many requirements or restrictions ,depending on the societal structure . Wiki give some history that might be worth consideration . " A marriage license is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in theMiddle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given)." en.wikipedia.org...

Two people man and a woman can introduce themselves to a group as husband and wife and they can consider themselves married before God . Remember that it was Moses that created a certificate of divorce long before there was a certificate of marriage .

I don't know, that weasel makes me nervous.
Maybe if he's president gay couples will have a "Visit the freedom camps day".
Which will make it easier to separate the real Americans from the aberrations.

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...

All I can say is, I am forever thankful that Rand Paul's opinion doesn't mean squat.

It's in the hands of the SCOTUS now and I doubt seriously that their decision will conform to his twisted idea of equality.

"Freedom!

But only for anyone who believes what I believe!

USA! USA! USA!"

Lol...you people are ridiculous

a reply to: sweets777

Do not presume to speak for all straight men. You speak for your hateful, ignorant self and nobody else.

a reply to: Foderalover

From the link in your OP:

Ian Sams, spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, said Paul’s remarks demonstrate the potential candidate’s true colors as far-right conservative.

“By saying he’s willing to broaden the GOP’s tent and reach out to new constituencies, Rand Paul is trying to pull the wool over our eyes,” Sams said. “Saying marriage equality ‘offends’ him gives us yet another glimpse of Paul’s true colors — a restrictive, retro social agenda that sets back LGBT rights and questions longstanding gains in civil rights. Support for marriage equality is at record highs, and most Americans now live in states where it’s legal. What’s truly offensive is Rand Paul’s insistence on being stuck in the past and failing to support equal rights for LGBT Americans.”

What a load of horse pucky! The Democrats are offended by everything from praying to NFL team names. The difference here is that Rand Paul has the intelligence to realize that it's okay to be offended by something, yet still afford those who offend you equal rights under the law. Calling it a "contract" or "marriage" is symantics, it's the substance and application of the laws that counts, and if they're equally applied, then who cares? Seriously, who cares about the name given to the act if the act is the same?

Only people trying to spin crap for political agendas, like Mr. Sams.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Seriously, who cares about the name given to the act if the act is the same?

Apparently Rand cares. He's being politically correct, the very thing he has railed against. He's a hypocrite.

"Separate but equal" does NOT work.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Seriously, who cares about the name given to the act if the act is the same?

Apparently Rand cares. He's being politically correct, the very thing he has railed against. He's a hypocrite.

"Separate but equal" does NOT work.

From Rand Paul, quoted in the OP's link:

Ultimately, we could have fixed this a long time ago if we just allowed contracts between adults. We didn’t have to call it marriage, which offends myself and a lot of people.

It wold appear from his own words that he would prefer that it be just "a contract" for all people, not just for gay marriages.

I assume that the reason the term "marriage" offends him is because, historically speaking, marriage has been a religious institution done to make a promise in the eyes of god. If he contends that his religious stance is that homosexuality is not accepted by his god, then I get why he'd be against using the word.

It seems as if he's not talking about separate-but-equal, at least in my assessment--he's lamenting the fact that, for government purposes, it wasn't just called "a contract" to begin with, and now the term "marriage" is causing the issue, not the legally-binding union in the eyes of the government.