Wow, you summarized Ron Paul's thoughts and beliefs on this very sensitive issue in a way that was easy to follow and understand.
I have very similar beliefs and I'm glad to see that my strong love for the Catholic Church can be related and shown through my love for Ron Paul.
Who IS Ron Paul? Do your own homework.
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.
www.ronpaulaudio.com
Great post and excellent writing. I support gay marriage, but still support Paul as well. That people on the opposite side of the issue can come to support Paul also speaks to the strength of his position.
Godwacker,
Thank you for commenting and for your compliments.
I'm encouraged that you are a Ron Paul supporter, however, I'm confused as to how you reconcile his freedom message with your support for gay marriage.
Everyone is free to get married in our society, but everyone is not free to redefine marriage.
The "Human Rights Campaign" is nothing of the sort, it is a campaign to remove this foundational institution from society, and deny it to everyone. This is exactly the kind of social engineering the Dr. Paul's campaign is in part so against because it is an imposition on the whole of society by a minority and it is extremely dangerous and strikes a blow primarily to children.
Everyone knows that all citizens are free to apply (and if they qualify) and to receive a driver's license.
Can that citizen take his driver's license an climb into the cockpit of an airplane and claim a right to pilot it?
Of course not.
Would it be an expansion of freedom to REDEFINE a driver's license to include airplanes?
No. It would be reckless and irresponsible to do so.
You and I are free to get married, but it would be reckless and irresponsible to think that freedom includes a right to marry multiple spouses, or to marry within consanguity, or marry my children, or marry my pet, or marry my car, or indeed marry someone of the same sex as me.
Marriage has a meaning and a purpose (granted it has come under termendous assault and is currently in shambles), but when we depart from that meaning and purpose we see dysfunction and social disruption spread in society.
"... I'm confused as to how you reconcile his freedom message with your support for gay marriage."
Well, Ron would not interfere with the rights of states to redefine marriage to include gay couples or to establish civil unions and he is opposed to the Federal government prohibiting gay marriage.
And I'm sorry, the Catholic side is LOSING on this issue as evidenced by the refusal of the Mass. legislature to change its current marriage law and growing support for same-sex marriage in public opinion polls.
Nobody is trying to force the Catholic Church to redefine its own view of marriage. However, the civil law already defines marriage in a different way than the church. Civil law, for example, allows divorce and remarriage-- unlike canon law.
"And I'm sorry, the Catholic side is LOSING on this issue..."
I don't think it's accurate to say that the Catholic side is losing. Indeed, no one has proposed a redefinition of Catholic marriages, as you point out.
Marriage in this country became an option for mixed-race couples in the mid-twentieth century, and all of the churches which opposed miscegenation were still free to perform single-race marriages. When same-sex marriage becomes legal in every state, Catholic Churches will still be free to marry only mixed-sex couples. Religious freedom is just as important as the freedom to marry.
"You and I are free to get married, but it would be reckless and irresponsible to think that freedom includes a right to marry multiple spouses, or to marry within consanguity, or marry my children, or marry my pet, or marry my car, or indeed marry someone of the same sex as me. "
I just wanted to say that promising another consenting adult[who happens to be the same sex as you] that you will love them and only them for the rest of your lives is not the same thing as saying that to your car or your pet.
Neither a hamster nor a Mini-van can sign a marriage license and a child cannot understand the complexity of marriage. Two women can do both just as well as one man and one woman.
Additionally, a marriage to your cousin or brother would be a danger to the health of any children you may have. Two men saying I love you until death do us part, let's find a child who needs a home and adopt him/her and raise them together will not conflict with that child's health.
Allow me to recapitulate: Two men/women can sign a marriage license and understand it and what comes with it, they have the abilities to be monogamous, and their union will not present any physical danger to anyone else. What then is left? You think it's yucky? Is this the reason? It's morally wrong? As you alluded to earlier, some believe it's wrong to marry interracially. Similarly, interracial couples' marriage poses no danger to society, but should some stranger's opinion dictate its existance? If so, then interracial marriages should not be allowed in America. Thankfully, they do.
You're right. Gay marriage is reckless and irresponsible, because every gay couple I know runs around and tries to rob banks, kill people, steal cars. At least when gay people are single they do not commit any crimes or hurt anybody, right?
*and steal cars
"Additionally, a marriage to your cousin or brother would be a danger to the health of any children you may have. Two men saying I love you until death do us part, let's find a child who needs a home and adopt him/her and raise them together will not conflict with that child's health."
Ridiculous. It does pose a threat to a child's health and it is a proven fact that only mother and father can proide the different and needed support for a growing child. Also, you are sick.
"I just wanted to say that promising another consenting adult[who happens to be the same sex as you] that you will love them and only them for the rest of your lives is not the same thing as saying that to your car or your pet."
Agreed fr the car part, but for the pet I have to disagree. What is the difference? Please explain.
I think the point is that Catholics should support Ron Paul, because he will defend the Church's liberty to define marriage the way they want. He will also recognize and honor any contract between two individuals as long as it hurts no one. So, if same sex marriage is that contract it will be honored by the government. That is his position. You can read more at ronpaullibrary.org
the dictionary defines 'conservatism'as for the status quo..since the good ole USA has been going left with the evil FDR those of us who are anti-collectivist are hardly 'conservative' the government does have roles to play..traffic laws for example..remember it was the supreme court that rules in the horrible Dred Scott decsion..re: slaves are property no matter where they go etc...it was the same court that re-defined 'person' to exclude developing babies..so that they could be murdered by their temp.hosts..oops,look out here comes another Mexican truck......Nino
Equating inter-racial marriage with same-sex unions is problematic. One's color does not preclude the ability to procreate. While the members of a same-sex union each possess the capacity to procreate given union with members of the appropriate sex (ie. opposite), no child will come about from intrasexual union. Same-sex union from this perspective is more like sex with members of other species.
The catholic church has until recently seen procreation as the goal of marriage. Today despite "modernization" the church still includes "openness to children" as essential for catholic marriage along with "unitive" reasons.
Hi Carl,
If equating (actually, I think you mean analogizing, since that's what the above poster was doing) same-sex marriage with inter-racial marriage is problematic because color does not preclude the ability to procreate, then is it more correct to equate same-sex relationships with all other relationships that preclude the ability to procreate?
You say, "Same-sex union from this perspective is more like sex with members of other species."
In that vein, isn't it accurate to say that "Same-sex unions are as much like sex with members of other species as is all sex between infertile couples?" So same-sex union is just as similar to inter-species sex as is sex with a post-menopausal woman, or sex in a married couple where a woman has had a hysterectomy, etc? It seems, logically, that's exactly what you're saying.
>>...for the pet I have to disagree. What is the difference? Please explain.
Do you understand why dogs and cats can`t vote, even though sex and race are not factors... It is because they are incapable of doing so.
The same applies to marriage contracts. Couples of any race or sex combination have the ability to sign contracts and have exactly the same needs for the rights and responsibilities outlined in marriage.
Ron Paul says, "...if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches."
http://www.house.gov/paul/congre...04/
cr093004.htm
Vote Ron Paul and be able to vote your conscience!
Stop using jesus as an excuse for your narrow-minded bigotry.
Love prevails BEYOND RELIGION, GEOGRAPHY, AND ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO THROW IN ITS WAY.
Please, do humanity a huge favor and wise up. Don't forget we are living in the 21st century, meaning a continuous PROGRESSION and equality for ALL. How dare you Catholic heterosexuals deny civil liberties to others. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Love each other. Quit wasting time condemning people.
Really?
You're right, you really should be worried about two people that love one another getting equal rights. God forbid you worry about the millions and millions of dollars you spend on pure-gold chalices to drink from at mass while children are starving. God forbid you worry about the pedophiles you have running your churches, and the deeply-rooted scandals behind the cover-ups. God forbid you worry about the devestation of over-population and ignorance in the third world countries that you go into and preach against birth control. Archaic and Cult-like much? Good Grief, WAKE UP!!!
gay people deserve equal rights. you don't have to be christian to get married in the united states; the church ceremony is optional. advocating the restriction of other people's civil liberties is a very un-christian action. if YOU were born gay, i bet you would think differently than you do now. have you no empathy for people different than you? you sound like the god of the old testament on this blog, unforgiving and unbending. who are you to pass judgment?
I'm curious about how you reconcile Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as I have loved you," with this hatred of gays.
Ezekiel 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy."
Without a doubt, there are more passages in the Bible saying that we will go to hell for not helping the less fortunate than there are saying gays will burn in hell.
Look into your heart and think of what Jesus would say if he read this blog (and he is).
Commenting by HaloScan
