What is Ron Paul’s problem with homosexuals?
According to On The Issues, Ron Paul voted yes on “an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.” It’s just another indication of where Ron Paul stands with regards to treatment of homosexuals. He doesn’t want gays to either marry or raise kids. What a guy.
Furthermore, I would like to bring back Ron Paul’s comments from the debate and highlight once again the evidence of how anti-homosexual he is:
MR. SPRADLING: Congressman Paul, a question for you.
Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell†policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military?
REP. PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.
So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.
To sum up, Ron Paul thinks the current policy is a good one, and that disruptive conduct by heterosexuals or homosexuals should be grounds to dismiss military personnel. On the last part, I agree in general. However, and here is the key point:
Unlike “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and Ron Paul, I don’t think the act of merely saying one is gay is disruptive
There is no other way to interpret Ron Paul’s comments. If he thinks the current policy is a good policy, then he thinks just being gay is disruptive. So despite all the blather about state’s rights, individual freedom, blah, blah, from Ron Paul, that only applies if you’re straight. If you’re gay, forget it. You’re too “disruptive.”
June 11th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I think you misunderstand him. My understanding is that he strongly disagrees with viewing people as a group. That is, all individuals should have the same rights independent of their sexuality, religious beliefs, gender and so forth.
I think your key point is that he said the current policy is decent. I’d personally like for him to qualify this further, so people don’t misunderstand him. I don’t have a problem with it though, because his guiding principles are so clear on the topic.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
He had a chance later to say if he would change the policy (Wolf Blitzer asked anyone to speak up who would change it), and Ron Paul stood silent.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I forgot in my previous comment, but I think he is on the record as voting for gay marriage, but against gay adoption. I haven’t studied it in detail, so maybe I’m wrong. Typically, you can, however, find that his reasoning is based directly on the constitution, and a couple of guiding principles such as individualism and a free market.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Well, see if you can find the constitutional argument for kicking gays out of the military for just being gay. Good luck with that one.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
@Shane: I noticed that too. I’d like for him to qualify himself on this issue, because it’s an important issue. I don’t expect a lot in those sound-bite debates though. Anyway, based on his very clear point about collectivism and his consistent voting record, I’m quite comfortable with him.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
@Shane: I don’t think there is a constitutional argument for kicking gays out of the military. I think Ron Paul would agree with that. Specifically, he would probably argue that you should judge people exclusively based on individual achievement and competence.
I definitely understand why you criticize him, and I think it’s a good point.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
You don’t think that one saying he/she is gay will be disruptive?
… seriously? I think you highly overestimate our nation’s tolerance towards gays and lesbians. Yeah, I’m not saying it’s a good thing we don’t have a majority of a tolerance for them, since I’m personally FOR gay rights… but the fact is: The policy works. One’s sexuality is not and never will be a factor in the skill of a soldier that has trained to fire a gun. So why ask?
June 11th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Brian,
No one is saying you should ask. It’s when people find out, for whatever reason, that someone is gay, Ron Paul is cool with the policy of kicking him/her out. People like you would have put off integrating the military with that same argument.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
What is Ron Paul’s problem with homosexuals?
He doesn’t want to catch Teh Gay?
June 11th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I tell you what — you pay the illegal corporate Federal Income tax on my wages and the hidden Federal Reserve inflationary tax on my retirement savings for the rest of my life, and you might have an audience here against Ron Paul.
Whaddya say — deal, or no deal?
June 11th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
You don’t think that one saying he/she is gay will be disruptive?
I bet certain dickheads in the military also find titties “disruptive”, but does that mean we should ban *all* women just because *some* men are misogynists?
Wait, don’t answer that.
June 11th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I think you are naive if you believe that being openly gay in the military is not disruptive. Like it or not, homophobia exists and until it doesn’t, the policy is a decent one. No one is saying that you can’t serve in the military if you’re gay…just keep it to yourself. Is that so hard?
June 11th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
First you prove that being gay is genetic. Then maybe you have a case. Until then your just another whining presbyterian.
Personally, I think it would be PREFERABLE for a child to have a male and a female parent. I don’t like to ban things though.
Our present system has the state doing everything. Without puting words in Ron Pauls mouth, I could see privately funded orphanages taking on this role. Presumably they would make the best call for the child, and hopefully not based on any claim for group rights.
June 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
this is a wedge issue that divides people and it should be avoided for now.
Ron Paul voted no on all the things that take freedom or give unchecked power. the America we know and love needs serious rehabilitation if we want to secure our prosperity.
first lets get rid of the IRS and the FED and stop borrowing 3 billion a day so us tax payers and our children can stop mounting a debt we’ll be paying on indefinitely. remember we’re paying interest on this debt and 100% of our income tax goes to this (according to the Grace commission).
once we do that we can also rescind the Patriot act and restore habeas corpus which gives us the right to due process. then we’ll have some of our constitution back in our hands so we don’t have to fear speaking against these officials without being spied on.
then once we do that we can stop the military occupation in Iraq and slow the hatred of American foreign policy around the world.
once we do that we’ll have a better funded public which will add to the local economy.
after this is all said and done we’ll be able to focus more on wedge issues and I guarantee Ron wouldn’t veto a bill that gave freedom, went with the constitution, doesn’t raise taxes and wont add bureaucracy.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
For all you Ron Paul apologists who try to argue that allowing gays to serve openly would be this big huge distraction, ask yourself what kind of disruption occurred between 1957 and 1964 as the military eliminated all-black units and discrimination.
You probably can’t remember reading about it being a big deal, because, here’s the kicker..it wasn’t a disruption. Our army moved on.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Adam,
Judging by your crackpot belief that the 16th Amendment was never ratified and therefore federal income taxes are illegal, I think it’s safe to say I’m paying a lot more in federal income tax than you every year.
Also, it says a lot about you that you would be concerned with the civil rights of a group only after getting paid.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Dominic,
Since when are civil rights issue wedge issues? The problem is, you’re so in love with Ron Paul’s fiscal policies, you fail to acknowledge or believe his extreme shortcomings when it comes to civil rights and real equality.
You guarantee “Ron wouldn’t veto a bill that gave freedom”, and yet, Ron Paul was up on the stage with the rest of the other Republican reptiles affirming a federal discrimination policy.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
gays are lucky to be here in US. if you were in other countries…they treat really really bad to gays.
Ron Paul is for civil union for gays but no marriage. I support him.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Dr. Paul’s point that we need to stop seeing people as primarily deriving their rights from some sub-group that they belong to is RIGHT ON. As he said, we do not derive our rights as human beings by belonging to some group or another (gays, women, latinos, blacks, whatever!) We derive our Rights as INDIVIDUALS.
Also, Shane, I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you but no one who has a real life with real problems gives two shits about gays in the military. With the serious life and death problems we are facing in the world you’re wedge issue is small minded, meaningless, and divisive for no practical or significant reason. I do not know a single person gay or straight that is affected in ANY way by this issue.
If your vote for president hangs on an issue that literally afftects probably 0.001% of the population at large then I feel sorry for you. This does not affect the lives of real people. Monetary policy does.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
dbassam,
I’m sorry for you that you feel human rights and equal treatment mean nothing to you. I won’t support a candidate who pushes his Christian beliefs on others through the power of the federal government.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
gays are lucky to be here in US. if you were in other countries…they treat really really bad to gays.
Yeah those silly flamers should just kiss our feet and be happy with the scraps of human dignity we throw their way. We just deny their human rights - we don’t stone ‘em like the Iranians.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Also, Shane, I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you but no one who has a real life with real problems gives two shits about gays in the military. With the serious life and death problems we are facing in the world you’re wedge issue is small minded, meaningless, and divisive for no practical or significant reason.
Shit, if only someone had told Frederick Douglass that human rights are nothing but “wedge issues”, maybe we’d still be able to own brown people. Ditto with Dr. King and segregation.
I’m sorry that you’re so self-interested, dbassam, that you’re willing to sell out gays, women, and any other minority/oppressed group that doesn’t involve you, you, you. You’re like the conservative version of Kos. I can only hope that the illegal immigration from the south continues in such waves that white heterosexual bigots like you soon *are* in the minority.
June 12th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Looking at that bill, you’ll see that there was a whole lot of pork included for D.C. along with the amendment.
That will be the difference when Ron Paul is president. Congress will have to send him clean bills with no pork in order to get through his veto.
Ron Paul votes No…a lot. Don’t take that as him being against whatever feel good legislation the bill was “supposed” to be.
Like the Amber Alert law that was all about saving the kiddies. Ron Paul voted against that. Oh no, is Ron Paul against kids…wants them to be kidnapped? No. The bill also included a little side bar called the Rave Party law, where if anyone is caught on your property using drugs your property can be confiscated by the government, no matter if you know about it or take measures to stop it. This means that if some guy is in your back yard smoking pot while you’re asleep and the cops bust him…the government can actually seize your property. But no…he just voted against that bill because he hates kids.
He’s Dr. No for a reason. The more telling examples of his beliefs are when he votes Yes.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I agree with you that DADT is a bad policy, but your last paragraph is disgraceful. You wrote:
—
There is no other way to interpret Ron Paul’s comments. If he thinks the current policy is a good policy, then he thinks just being gay is disruptive. So despite all the blather about state’s rights, individual freedom, blah, blah, from Ron Paul, that only applies if you’re straight. If you’re gay, forget it. You’re too “disruptive.â€
—
Well I’m glad you’ve played the role of “The Decider” and told us there’s no other way to interpret Paul’s position.
Your interpretation is very narrow-minded, and THEN you flat out twist Paul’s words. He didn’t say it’s a “good” policy. He said it’s a “decent” policy, and his further remarks CERTAINLY open up the interpretation that he opposes the discriminatory effects of DADT.
Be realistic: Ron Paul is running for the Republican nomination. He’s already advocating an anti-war position that a majority of the Republican electorate currently opposes. This costs him support. He cannot afford to frame the DADT issue as “I’d get rid of it.” He just can’t.
His support for DADT was about as weak as you can get without raising eyebrows. Watch the video. Listen to his words carefully, and listen how quickly he throws out “decent policy.” If I say a woman is “decent looking” is that a strong endorsement? Then look to the rest of his answer. This isn’t a man looking to discriminate based on orientation.
Why aren’t you bashing the other 9 candidates, each of which would probably be LESS likely to reevaluate DADT than Paul???
June 12th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
If we took every gay man on the Earth and placed them on an island, what would be there if we come back in 150 years????
Answer: Bones
Gay and Lesbians require a heterosexual society to exist…………….They cannot reproduce…………They can only impose there sexuality by molestation or corrupting the minds of the young……..They feed off of us like vampires………………..Your voices are loud but at the end of the day you can fack each other until your dead………………..and never bore children………..
From Shane…you have to almost respect someone so willing to be a public bigot
June 13th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Gay and Lesbians require a heterosexual society to exist…………….They cannot reproduce…………They can only impose there sexuality by molestation or corrupting the minds of the young……..They feed off of us like vampires………………..Your voices are loud but at the end of the day you can fack each other until your dead………………..and never bore children………..
Shirley Phelps-Roper, is that you?
July 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Unbelieveable that Ron Paul can publish so much hate. He is another George Bush. The jerk who said it does not seriously effect gay or straight people, HELLO what about those thrown out every year? Living in hiding? Why gay people have to lie and straight do not?
Ron Paul is a religous right wing hate monger
July 17th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Gosh, with all the people rushing to justify this atrocious statist policy to cover St. Ron Paul’s ass, as a gay man, I have to ask how many folks here would happily defend a regulation that would immediately fire anyone who mentions his opposite-sex spouse or children?
Most Americans are intolerant towards libertarians — we need to get rid of them too. Let’s ban libertarianism from the armed forces and fire the libertarians who don’t pretend to be socialists.
Atheism certainly isn’t tolerated by most Americans and is highly disruptive — as are minority religions such as Islam, Judaism, and Wicca. Let’s require that all religious minorities in the military pretend to be Bible-believing Christians too!
It’s sad how many libertarians so often abandon gay people when they think it’s convenient for their political beliefs. If they were held to the same standards that gay people are held to, they’d be screaming bloody murder. And until most libertarians take an unambiguous and vocal stance against homophobia, the country’s gay population will continue to lean left out of simple need for self-preservation.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Ron Paul speaks for himself:
“”Don’t ask, don’t tell’ doesn’t sound all that bad to me because as an employer, I’ve never asked them [employees] anything and I don’t want them to tell me anything. … So I would say that everyone should be treated equally, and they [gays] shouldn’t be discriminated against because of that alone. Which means that even though those words aren’t offensive to me, that ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ don’t sound so bad to me, I think the way it’s enforced is bad. Because, literally, if somebody is a very, very good individual working for our military - and I met one just the other day in my office, who was a translator - and he was kicked out for really no good reason at all. I would want to change that, I don’t support that interpretation.”
July 27th, 2007 at 8:44 am
That’s wonderful, though of course, when he had a national audience he decided to keep his mouth shut. And it’s so nice he finally met “one.”