Ron Paul is doing it again.

[guartz]

really guys?... really?

Gay couples marrying is the issue for you?

[BRP]

Isn't he just saying let states decide matters?

[guartz]

Yup. I think the "charter" or whatever the state's constitution is called, come up for reviews (changes?) every 6 years. Get your community together and petition for gay marriage clause. Should Ron Paul win the presidency, the federal government won't intervene.

[Maxxthepenguin]

really guys?... really?

Gay couples marrying is the issue for you?

It's a good barometer.

[guartz]

really guys?... really?

Gay couples marrying is the issue for you?

It's a good barometer.

I GET IT, something like this?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7.../barometer.jpg

[pohibaba]

Can someone state a good reason to not allow gay marriages that isn't rooted in religious beliefs or homophobia?

It's gross?

r u sirius?

Normally I'd assume sarcasm, but after some of the absurdity in this topic I can't really be sure.

Yeah, it was sarcasm.

My belief: The government has no authority to issue marriage licenses.

[Correction]

That's a pretty artful dodge. Oh shit your pet candidate was found to be a typical Republican hypocrite on the matter of civil rights for gay people. Better dismiss the issue as unimportant before everybody else finds out!

[pohibaba]

That's a pretty artful dodge. Oh shit your pet candidate was found to be a typical Republican hypocrite on the matter of civil rights for gay people. Better dismiss the issue as unimportant before everybody else finds out!

Because of course you have to agree with everything a candidate believes in to vote for him, right? That must be why nobody votes.

[Correction]

That's a pretty artful dodge. Oh shit your pet candidate was found to be a typical Republican hypocrite on the matter of civil rights for gay people. Better dismiss the issue as unimportant before everybody else finds out!

Because of course you have to agree with everything a candidate believes in to vote for him, right? That must be why nobody votes.

I know that I agree with a vanishingly small minority of what Ron Paul stands for and that I won't be voting for him; and I'll encourage others to do likewise.

[pohibaba]

That's a pretty artful dodge. Oh shit your pet candidate was found to be a typical Republican hypocrite on the matter of civil rights for gay people. Better dismiss the issue as unimportant before everybody else finds out!

Because of course you have to agree with everything a candidate believes in to vote for him, right? That must be why nobody votes.

I know that I agree with a vanishingly small minority of what Ron Paul stands for and that I won't be voting for him; and I'll encourage others to do likewise.

That has nothing to do with what you previously said. I understood that he was a Christian conservative from the beginning. The issue of gay marriage just isn't that important to me. So, how exactly is that a "dodge"?

[Correction]

I was responding to guartz's 'c'mon guys is it really that important?' defense of Mr. Paul's stand on the issue. This coming after his insistence that a strict constitutionalist is best for everybody since it will never interfere with personal liberties, his voting record on gay rights notwithstanding.

There's something fundamentally fishy about espoused ideas of 'no government interference' juxtaposed against 'lol no gay marriage' and 'lol no stem cell research' and that's what really stinks about Ron Paul.

[pohibaba]

I was responding to guartz's 'c'mon guys is it really that important?' defense of Mr. Paul's stand on the issue. This coming after his insistence that a strict constitutionalist is best for everybody since it will never interfere with personal liberties, his voting record on gay rights notwithstanding.

There's something fundamentally fishy about espoused ideas of 'no government interference' juxtaposed against 'lol no gay marriage' and 'lol no stem cell research' and that's what really stinks about Ron Paul.

Isn't he just saying let states decide matters?

This.

[Correction]

So we should accept civil rights for gays and advanced medical research as entirely contingent on the happy accident of what state you live in?

I don't.

[Beckwin]

So we should accept civil rights for gays and advanced medical research as entirely contingent on the happy accident of what state you live in?

I don't.

Exactly.

The state I'm in would ban gay marriages, probably ban stem cell research (cool thing is now they can do it without fetal cells but yeah), and I think if it was seriously put to ballot, would just make being Mexican illegal along with speaking Spanish.

[pohibaba]

So we should accept civil rights for gays and advanced medical research as entirely contingent on the happy accident of what state you live in?

I don't.

You understand that you can:

1) Influence your state's policy decisions (almost certainly easier than the national government's)

and

2) You can move from state to state without much of a hassle.

[Yangsing]

Sounds like a lazy mans approach.

[Beckwin]

So we should accept civil rights for gays and advanced medical research as entirely contingent on the happy accident of what state you live in?

I don't.

You understand that you can:

1) Influence your state's policy decisions (almost certainly easier than the national government's)

and

2) You can move from state to state without much of a hassle.

So segregation was ok with you? Guess MLK shoulda just moved up to New York or out to California.

[pohibaba]

So we should accept civil rights for gays and advanced medical research as entirely contingent on the happy accident of what state you live in?

I don't.

You understand that you can:

1) Influence your state's policy decisions (almost certainly easier than the national government's)

and

2) You can move from state to state without much of a hassle.

So segregation was ok with you? Guess MLK shoulda just moved up to New York or out to California.

Because of course that's exactly the same situation. Which Supreme Court case was it that ruled that laws banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. Also, segregation =/= gay marriage.

[BRP]

The state I'm in would ban gay marriages, probably ban stem cell research (cool thing is now they can do it without fetal cells but yeah), and I think if it was seriously put to ballot, would just make being Mexican illegal along with speaking Spanish.

I think gay marriages and stem cell research could only benefit from a change like this. Instead of supporters of both not getting in the house the first place and nothing changing. Ron Paul seems to be all about limiting the President's power. So basically, it's a win-win unless you like what our current president is doing.

[Beckwin]

"could only benefit" by being continually banned in Bible Belt states for who knows how long. Yeah. I'm sure a born and raised Texas gay couple would be able to win over the state in their lifetime together, or a brilliant scientist at an Alabama university could win over that state.

Although "not Bush" is actually a great reason to vote for someone, there's enough of those to choose from where you don't have to pick a nutjob.