Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Rand Paul Weighs In On Obama’s View Of Marriage

May 16, 2012 by  

Rand Paul Weighs In On Obama’s View Of Marriage
UPI
Rand Paul had the crowd laughing at Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition when he said he did not think the President’s views on marriage “could get any gayer.”

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has come under scrutiny for saying he did not believe President Barack Obama’s views on marriage “could get any gayer.”

During a speech at Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting, Paul said: “The President recently weighed in on marriage and you know he said his views were evolving on marriage. Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.

“He said the biblical golden rule caused him to be for gay marriage. And I’m like, what version of the Bible is he reading?” Paul continued.

“That doesn’t mean we have to be harsh and mean and hate people. … We are not out there preaching some sort of hateful dogma against people, but that doesn’t mean that we have to go ahead and give up our traditions. We’ve got 6,000 years of tradition. There’s a lot of stability, even beyond religion, there’s stability in the family unit. Just from an anthropological point of view, the family is a really important thing. We shouldn’t just give up on it.”

Paul also addressed abortion during his speech. He said he has helped introduce the Life at Conception Act, the Pro-Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act and the Human Life Amendment.

For a proper understanding of abortion and government, Paul recommended Abortion and Liberty, a book written by his father, Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Rand Paul added that the 1st Amendment is about keeping government out of religion, not about keeping religious people out of government.

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Rand Paul Weighs In On Obama’s View Of Marriage”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • MAP

    And men did the same thing, leaving the natural function with women, and burning in their desire for each other. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and brought on themselves the penalty they deserved for this perversion.
    Romans 1:27

    Lie not with a male as bedding with a woman: it is abhorrent.
    Leviticus 18:22

    • Robert Smith

      Thank you for your comment from the American Taliban.

      Rob

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So you are more religious than all the Christians and Jews you condemn.
        You have created your own god or are just following the Philanthropist of Eden (Satan).
        You have a shopping list of attributes that you want your god to have and they are all presumebly opposite the God of the Bible.
        In the simplest terms possible your rebellion is just simply love of sins in your life that you don’t want to part with.

      • Gary L

        Robert,
        I can understand your anger at God.
        You are upset that your mind is warped.
        Don’t feel too bad though, all liberals are like that.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So according to your reasoning Sir Isaac Newton is an American Taliban because he was to have given this response to a man who said “Sir Isaac, I do not understand. You seem to be able to be able to believe the Bible like a little child. I have tried but I cannot. So many of its statements mean nothing to me.I cannot believe; I cannot understand.” Sir Isaac Newton replied: “Sometimes I come into my study and in my absentmindedness I attempt to light my candle when the extinguisher is over it, and I fumble about trying to light it and cannot; but when I remove the extinguisher then I am able to light the candle. I am afraid the extinguisher in your case is the love of your sins; it is deliberate unbelief that is in you. Turn to God in repentance;be prepared to let the Spirit of God reveal His truth to you, and it will be His Joy to show the glory of the grace of God shining in the face of Jesus Christ.”

      • MAP

        Beautiful, Nadzieja. God works miracles within our lives. Those who deny this have never tried.

      • Steve E

        Hey Robert, Here’s another scripture from the American Taliban Bible in Proverbs 17:15 I think you will like:
        “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD”.
        Those American Taliban, they are so funny sometimes. I wish we had more of them.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Robert Smith,”

        WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT A Christian TO SAY? IT IS WRONG TO CRITICIZE “MAP’s’” VALUES; HE REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY. IF A HOMOSEXUAL BELIEVES IN “God,” HE/SHE MUST LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY HOW HE/SHE COULD BELIEVE IN A DOCTRINE WHICH SAYS HE/SHE IS WRONG.

        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        • Robert Smith

          According to your view. Others don’t represent that there christian god so brutally as you do.

          Rob

  • MAP

    9)Or know ye not that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not led astray. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate men, nor homosexuals,

    10)nor greedy men, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor the slanderous, nor the predatory will inherit the kingdom of God.
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10

    • Sirian

      MAP,
      Good points by all means!! But “the fools that be” will adhere to their pc mindset and will scoff at what you’ve laid out. Has this not become quite customary?

      • Robert Smith

        The “fools” simply don’t follow the religion that caters to that particular brutal right wing god.

        Others DO allow same sex marriage in the eyes of their god.

        Rob

      • Sirian

        Which other religion that you speak of DO allow this? Feed me a source that will make your statement verifiable. BTW, since when has God been political? Hmmm, it’s always struck me as if he’s totally non-political!! Gee whiz, musta been wrong ‘bout that all my life. Is he/she/it a D or R? Then again maybe an I or L . . . any others maybe possible??? I gotta know, I gotta know!!

      • Gary L

        Robert believes you can put God in a box and HE then becomes all or only what he thinks God should be.

      • Karolyn

        It has nothing to do with “PC”. It has to do with the concept that all men are created equal. My concept of God and view of the Bible are totally different than yours. That does not necessarily make me wrong. We are all brothers and sisters. Try reading different interpretations of writings in the Bible. What might mean one thing to you means something entirely different to someone else, especially in translating the ancient Greek. I have posted sites before, but I won’t even bother because those with narrow minds don’t want to hear or see what anyone else has to say.

    • HH

      MAP
      Thanks for reminding us of those scriptures, two of which are quoted from the New Testament. Problem is a lot of people don’t view the Bible as the true word of God, they don’t understand it so they ignore it’s trues. Read what Doc Sarvis just posted, he seems to know the scripture but he doesn’t understand it. We now live under the New Testament law and NOT under the Old Testament law that Doc refers to. The Old Testament law was abolished, or fulfilled, when Christ died on the cross and rose again the third day. Fulfillment of the old law and the ringing in of the new law, Christ’s law of love. Oh, before you come back at me Doc, owning slaves is not a sin under first century Christian teachings but you must read what Christ says about slavery. Christ did not promote slavery but what he did do was to teach us how slaves should be treated. Of course I would not promote slavery even if it were legal in this country.

      • Ted Crawford

        HH, have you ever heard of Zig Ziggler? He speaks of people who tell him they don’t read the Bible because they ” don’t understand it”, his response to that is ” I don’t think it’s the parts they don’t understand that bothers them”! Sounds about right to me!

  • Doc Sarvis

    Rand states;”We are not out there preaching some sort of hateful dogma against people…” Stick around this thread for just a little while and you will see that is not true.

    If you want to stick to Biblical teachings you will find it also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

    • MAP

      Only a fool listens to the babblings of an atheist.

      • Robert Smith

        Are you denying what those passages say?

        Can’t tell because your post is only name calling.

        Rob

      • ringgo1

        Rob, why do you post here? Are you paid to post?

      • Robert Smith

        riggo asks: “Rob, why do you post here?”

        I rather enjoy watching the right wing nuts go for the name calling and screeching about their American Taliban while they make absolutely no sense. I find it entertaining. It makes it easy for me to push buttons in meat space so I can send a right winger out of a room slamming doors and mumbling bible verses to themselves. Those who are left behind are laughing at them.

        “Are you paid to post?”

        No. Do you still beat your wife?

        Rob

    • ringgo1

      Why do you post here? Are you paid to post?

      • Doc Sarvis

        I am not paid to post here. I do it because I am a proud American who loves his country. I value truth which is too abscent on this site and I believe in the freedom of speech.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Doc Sarvis if you value Freedom of Speach why do you deny it to others?
        You can be asked why you post on this site because the question is also part of Freedom of Speach.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        My bad spelling. It is Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Nadzieja, when have I denied others the right to free speech?

    • Steve E

      Oh, I miss the good old days. How about when Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed with all those queers inside. That was pretty cool, wasn’t it? If my town ever goes 100% queer, I’m going to get the hell out before that happens, and not look back.

      • Karolyn

        They weren’t “queers” in Sodom & Gomorrah; they were debauchers who wanted to rape both men AND women. Rape is a act of power and control.

      • Ted Crawford

        Karolyn
        Perhaps you might read that again. The Angels were male Angels, the men of the city wanted them and only them. Lot attempted to appease them by offering up his own Daughters for their sexual gradification and they were soundly rejected! It wasn’t about any rape, male of female it was about homosexual obsession !

      • Karolyn

        They wanted to degrade the strangers. The people of the city were degenerates and pagans. What you’re saying is that they were all homosexuals? Doesn’t it say that the men of the city wanted to perpetrate the act? If so, using your rationale, all the men in the city were gay.

      • Steve E

        And the homosexual obsession was rampant in the city and tolerated by the people. And by coincidence, the city burned and all the people were destroyed…As the story goes.

      • Robert Smith

        Steve says: “I’m going to get the hell out before that happens, and not look back.”

        And go into the caves with your daughters, get drunk, and get them pregnant. What a guy Lott was! If he were around here he’d be in jail for child rape.

        Rob

      • Robert Smith

        Ted says: “Lot attempted to appease them by offering up his own Daughters for their sexual gradification ”

        What a guy Lot was! Pimping for his kids.

        And your god thinks HE was the “good” one.

        ROFL

        Rob

  • Tom T

    Usually, when one cannot use logic to back up their position in a civil debate, they resort to verbal assault via “uncivil” name calling. Keep in mind Mrs. Obama said recently “To achieve the hope and change we are talking about, we have to change our history and traditions.”. Says a lot about their true agenda.
    Personally I don’t care if gays want to have a civil union as it really doesn’t , to quote Jefferson, “pick my pocket nor break my leg” but I don’t think it is the role of government to change the definitions of words.

  • http://www.mototcarsfinancial.com Brad

    and the left does not change words. Their new code is exactly that. Bunch of babbling fools for the followers of their Forward progression. He will lead you right into the fire and you will follow you master, the King of Amerika.

    • Ted Crawford

      Obama does seem to believe himself to be the modernday version of Hythlodays ” King Utopus”

  • Chester

    Why don’t the lot of you go back and READ the Golden Rule? Seems to me it says something like “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Any time you start telling someone that their rights don’t exist because you don’t agree with their way of life, even when it causes no actual harm to you, you are going dead against the Golden Rule. That is, of course, assuming you don’t want “the others” taking some of your rights away in turn.

    • MAP

      Chester, the left denies me many of my rights every single day and the number grows daily. The golden rule for me is the Holy Bible. That is my guidebook to life. I will not alter my moral code to conform to a group of radical, atheistic, depraved zealots. I trust only in God and his Word. Their totalitarian attempts will never change my opinon, because my opinon comes from a source far higher than Stalin wannabes.

    • 45caliber

      Chester:

      The gays have the same rights that other males do. What do you mean we are taking away their rights? They can marry a woman if they want to.

      And I have no problem with civil unions. The real problem I have is that they insist that I MUST accept their beliefs as “normal”. That is actually brain washing, if you want the old propagandists’ term for what they want. They do NOT want me to believe what the Bible tells me is right and wrong. Therefore if anyone is attempting to take away rights, it is MY rights they want to take away, not their own.

      • HH

        Amen 45caliber! Very well said!

      • TML

        45 says, “What do you mean we are taking away their rights? They can marry a woman if they want to.”

        But if a gay male wishes to marry another male (not a woman), then laws have been put in place to refuse that, thus taking away their equal rights to marry who another consenting adult… or in your terms, taking away their god given right even to sin. Is this what it means to codify religious morality even when an act between consenting adults hurts no one? Something being viewed as a sin in your eyes, or even according to scripture, is not the standard for which something should be made illegal.

        45 says, “The real problem I have is that they insist that I MUST accept their beliefs as “normal”.”

        I also have a problem with any one who says another individual MUST accept something counter to their personal morality… and indeed you do not have to accept it. But the governments legitimate role is not to respect your religion, and instead provide equal rights between consenting adults. The government MUST recognize the marriage, not you.

      • Paul B.

        Since when have honored rights between “consenting Adults” Does that mean I can marry two women, or three other men, even if consenting. Is that where we are going?
        Marriage laws don’t state between two consenting adults, it says between one man and one woman… period.

        Consenting adults has nothing to do with our rights. This administration abd the FDA are criminalizing all sorts of transactions and agreements between consenting adults, like selling pigs or unpasteurized milk to my neighbors who consents to purchase it. I can’t get salt in NYC even though I am an adult, I can’t buy a happy meal for my kids in San Francisco, or for a short time, have bake sales at school.

        Laws are not to allow anything two consenting adults want to do… laws are what we have “agreed” to allow consenting adults to do. Your argument holds little or no water. This is the society that you Liberals have created so you can only blame yourself if we take offense to allowing whatever YOU want while denying whatever the rest of US want.

        Granted I am for civil unions with rights that we, as a society, agree we should allow them to have… just like every other law that we enact.

      • Paul B.

        Sorry… typo
        Since when have WE, as a society, honored rights between “consenting Adults.” etc.

      • 45caliber

        TML:

        Where did the right for a male to marry another male come from? Certainly not from anything voted upon. Certainly not from the majority of the people. And definately not from God. And, if it didn’t come from one of these ways, then it isn’t a “right” is it?

      • TML

        Paul B. says, “Since when have honored rights between “consenting Adults””

        Since the founding principle of this country… just because it is often ignored doesn’t mean it should be.

        Paul B. says, “Does that mean I can marry two women, or three other men, even if consenting. Is that where we are going?”

        Pretty much, yeah… only the women should be able to have more than one husband as well, if they so consent. We don’t outlaw threesomes, etc… if they want to enter into a civil contract of marriage then why not? Even your bible does not outlaw this practice.

        Paul B. says, “Marriage laws don’t state between two consenting adults, it says between one man and one woman… period.”

        That is only a result of those attempting to reduce the freedom and liberty of others by defining marriage in terms restrictive to the adherence of their personal morality. Namely the DEFENSE of Marriage Act (DOMA)

        Paul B. says, “Consenting adults has nothing to do with our rights.”

        Consent is the most basic and simplest fundamental principle of Liberty

        Paul B. says, “This administration abd the FDA are criminalizing all sorts of transactions and agreements between consenting adults, like selling pigs or unpasteurized milk to my neighbors who consents to purchase it. I can’t get salt in NYC even though I am an adult, I can’t buy a happy meal for my kids in San Francisco, or for a short time, have bake sales at school.”

        Then this administration is going against the principles of liberty and freedom through double speak from both sides of his lying mouth.

        Paul B. says, “Laws are not to allow anything two consenting adults want to do… laws are what we have “agreed” to allow consenting adults to do.”

        Indeed, laws are often the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the equal rights of others.

        Paul B. says, “Your argument holds little or no water.”

        I’m sure it does objectively. It’s your subjective opinion that says otherwise.

        Paul B. says, “This is the society that you Liberals have created so you can only blame yourself if we take offense to allowing whatever YOU want while denying whatever the rest of US want.”

        I’m not a liberal, and don’t wish to deny you anything. No one says you have to agree with what two consenting adults do, but to deny them that right, is no better than making you do things, or refusing you things, without your consent… which would make you the hypocrite then.

        Paul B. says, “Granted I am for civil unions with rights that we, as a society, agree we should allow them to have… just like every other law that we enact.”

        In the context of government law (not the context of religious law or morality), marriage is a civil union.

      • TML

        45 says, “Where did the right for a male to marry another male come from? Certainly not from anything voted upon. Certainly not from the majority of the people. And definately not from God. And, if it didn’t come from one of these ways, then it isn’t a “right” is it?”

        The entire purpose of this form of this government, the Constitution/Bill of Rights, is to protect rights of citizens which preexist and supersede law, by nature of their humanity. Rights are not ‘granted’ to people by the will of a majority, as you would like to believe in this case. If you would like to cite ‘God’, as in ‘God-given rights’… yes, ‘he’ gave you also the right to sin. Should we also outlaw eating pork? What about witches… should there be a law against worshiping other gods simply because you think it’s a sin in the context of your own religious morality?

      • 45caliber

        TML

        Again, you are trying to create rights from something that does NOT give those rights. It does not state that marriage can be between people of the same sex. In fact, the Founding Fathers would have been horrified if they had been accused of doing that.

        This is simply a move by a group to create something in the Constitution that never existed by tryng to make it a “living” document. That basically means they want to make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say when it never did in the first place.

        So, you are wrong. There is NO right for people of the same sex to marry. It may be that someday they will get that right due to some law, but it certainly isn’t here yet. Don’t claim that it is.

      • TML

        45 says, “Again, you are trying to create rights from something that does NOT give those rights. It does not state that marriage can be between people of the same sex.”

        Sounds like the same arguments from people that say states have no right to secede, because it’s not specifically stated in the Constitution. Surely you understand that the rights of the people are too numerous to be specifically mentioned.

        45 says, “In fact, the Founding Fathers would have been horrified if they had been accused of doing that.”

        Doubtful… they may be horrified by the act of homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean they would not recognize their rights under the principles of liberty.

        “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” – Thomas Jefferson

        I believe the same principle applies in all cases of liberty freedom, and the rights of the individual.

        45 says, “So, you are wrong. There is NO right for people of the same sex to marry.

        No, I don’t believe I am. I refer you again to my first paragraph.

      • Robert Smith

        From 45: “And definately not from God. ”

        YOUR version of a brutal god.

        Check with guys like Bishop Spong. The god that guy worships doesn’t seem to worry about same sex merrage.

        Is that “God Hates Fags” sign you carry very heavy?

        Rob

      • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

        Rob – I bet your “I hate Christians” sign is a very very heavy burden and load to bear

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You, yourself, are not following the golden rule.
      Better that YOU should follow it than to bully others into following something that you yourslf don’t follow.

    • Andy

      Has anyone thought about where this ever-evolving move we have going on in this country will go next–how about making pedophilia legal? Next, let’s have adults marry children. Oh, and maybe, like China, your 2nd or 3rd child will be allowed to die because the powers decide you have had enough children. Why couldn’t you just kill anyone that you don’t like–is that STILL wrong if everything else is OK? Legalize beastiality–yeh…anything and everything goes. Then EVERYBODY will feel good–total UTOPIA. Anyone here feel like drawing the line?

      • Robert Smith

        Andy asks: “Anyone here feel like drawing the line?”

        Yes Andy. Lines can be drawn in a society. Particularly when someone else is harmed. You are allowed to swing your arms as much as you want as long as it doesn’t hit someone in the nose.

        “Has anyone thought about where this ever-evolving move we have going on in this country will go next–how about making pedophilia legal?”

        NO. Children are NOT consenting adults. Real harm can be done to them by adults raping them.

        ” Next, let’s have adults marry children.”

        You haven’t seen much Mormon history of the recent past, have you? Their god doesn’t seem to mind that. Same thing with poligamy.

        “Oh, and maybe, like China, your 2nd or 3rd child will be allowed to die because the powers decide you have had enough children.”

        Actually NOT true. They connect a lot of social stigmas to too many kids, but they don’t kill ‘em or allow them to die.

        “Why couldn’t you just kill anyone that you don’t like–is that STILL wrong if everything else is OK?”

        Your slippery slope “argument” is just plane nuts. We won’t go around killing folks just because one can. THAT is against the law.

        “Legalize beastiality–yeh…anything and everything goes.”

        If nothing else most animals are below the age of consent. There is no proof they would even have the ability to knowingly consent if they are old enough. This society respects animals enough such that rape of them is not allowed.

        Rob

      • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

        Rob you may be correct, they MAY have stopped killing them but they do still sell them — or steal them to sell them. Seems girls are in now since they killed or eliminated so many from their country that there’s a shortage so a new popular kidnapping ritual has been going on…
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486083/Babies-sale-The-scandal-Chinas-brutal-single-child-policy.html
        http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/category/topics/child-trafficking

    • Karolyn

      MAP – Nobody’s asking you to alter your moral code. Where do you get that from?

      • MAP

        I am demanded to accept something I abhor and consider sin. I will do no such thing. Like those in NC and every other place it has been placed on the ballot, I will vote my nonacceptance every chance I get.

      • Karolyn

        No; you are not demanded to accept anything. Of course, as the younger generations age, things will change, but we won’t be around to see it anyway.

      • Robert Smith

        “I will vote my nonacceptance every chance I get.”

        The “majority” does not get to take rights from a minority in America. If that were so women wouldn’t be able to vote and we would still have slavery.

        Now, what about the same sex couple next door to you needs “acceptance” from you? Do you peek into their bedroom to see what’ going on? Otherwise do you see them going to work like you, going shopping, and maybe even watch the light from the TV flicker as they watch JUST LIKE YOU.

        Do you leave the bedroom door open when you and your wife enjoy each other’s company? They don’t either.

        So, tell us, what do you have to “accept?”

        Rob

  • 45caliber

    “Rand Paul added that the 1st Amendment is about keeping government out of religion, not about keeping religious people out of government.”

    He is correct on this. It’s too bad others believe it to be the opposite. We’d be a lot better off if more religious people were involved in government.

    • HH

      And another AMEN 45caliber!

    • MAP

      I would only add to your excellent comment,45, that the 1st Admendment was not about the suppression and destruction of religion, the interpretation it has been twisted to mean. Nor does it condone the pushing of atheism and secualr humanism as the religion of state. By declaring these as non-religions, they are embraced as religion and pushed as religion, wtih all the wild-eyed fanaticism of a religious cult. Hence, the left uses our own rights against us, to the benefit of their own perverted agenda.

    • TML

      “Rand Paul added that the 1st Amendment is about keeping government out of religion, not about keeping religious people out of government.”

      45 says, “He is correct on this. It’s too bad others believe it to be the opposite. We’d be a lot better off if more religious people were involved in government.”

      I’d say is statement is correct, but incomplete and misleading.
      The 1st Amendment is about keeping government out of religion, not about keeping religious people out of government, BUT also is about keeping subjective religious doctrine from being codified as law. In other words, the religious people in office can not make laws which ‘respect’ a religion.

    • Robert Smith

      45 says: “We’d be a lot better off if more religious people were involved in government.”

      Yes! We need more Jewish folks, Hindues, Budists, Pagans, Bahai, UU…

      Rob

      • 45caliber

        I don’t have a problem with that. Do you? At least they would be more moral than those we have.

  • Thinking About

    If it is liberty for Rand, everything is on line, if it is liberty for everyone else where Rand might not be served then liberty should be shut down. Here is another example of I do what I want and I will control everyone else.

  • roger gunderson

    People who have a specific religion, that is fine; but please leave me alone. I have my own religion. Please stop trying to push your beliefs on to me. You enjoy your religion and I’ll enjoy mine. Fair? I feel there is no need to fight over religion. Religious symbols do not belong in public places. That’s what I call shoving your religion down my throat. If I want a certain religion I know how to find it. Would you like me to push my religion down your throat?

    • MAP

      Roger, that should depend upon the people that live there. In my small town (population <5000), they put up a nativity scene at the county couthouse every Christmas. People loved it. No one ever once complained. But some atheistic group, not only out of the county and out of the state, but clear across the country got wind of it and began threats. This last Christmas was the first since the founding of the county that the nativity scene was not on display, much to the disappointment of the people that live here. Welcome to the land of leftist freedom.

      • Karolyn

        Why didn’t one of the residents just put the nativity on his own property? I do not agree with that kind of extremism, though.

  • Lois

    LM says:
    Hey guys and gals, lets not get too excited about who marries who. Our jobs as Christians is to love these people as God loves them, and tell them about the love of Jesus Christ, and that the life style they are living is sinful in the eyes of God. If they still choose to sin then so be it! They are the ones that will suffer in the end when they face God on judgement day.
    Now, lets get down to the important thing. We who are for Ron Paul for President must go to the polls in Nov. and write in his name. This is imperative! If enough people write in Ron Pauls name they cannot ignore it.

  • http://paradigmbridge.wordpress.com dukeyes

    Government shouldn’t have anything to do with marraige, but that’s another story. Rand mentions tradition…slavery was a tradition once.

    There are legal ramifications to marraige vs. civil union that do cause inequality before the law. How does gay marraige affect your rights? (It doesn’t) You are free to view them as ‘not married’ because of your religious beliefs or any other reason. You are free to advocate for gay ‘re-education’, you are free to advertise your pro-man/woman marraige beliefs, you are NOT free to use the government monopoly on force to prevent two people from consensually entering a contract.

    I love Rand, but his position on this issue is not consistent with liberty.

    • Renée

      Speaking of education, I don’t believe that the goverment should force our kids to be taught that homosexuality is normal. THAT is now being shoved down the throats of impressionable children. If they can’t talk about religion in school, they shouldn’t talk about someone’s lifestyle choices. http://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40339/
      I can understand teaching against bullying, that is unacceptable in any form and to anyone but to force this belief on our children is opening doors where I personally feel they have over stepped their bounds! Who are they to think they have that right. They take away all the rights of Christians in schools, then they push this gay agenda on them. Where does it end? My next concern is that, because they say you are born gay, now it’s “normal”. SO if someone is a pedifile, and they say they were born that way, is that going to be the next “normal?” Here a judge has the nerve to say that viewing child porn is alright? Are you kidding me? http://gawker.com/5909110/viewing-child-porn-online-officially-a+ok-in-new-york-state
      The bible is clear that this is NOT normal. I do agree that gays shouldn’t be bashed because God sent Christ for all man, woman, and child. Christ died for all sin and we are all sinners but what we need to do is pray that God’s grace would be made manifest in those who are lost. I also believe that to force kids to feel that homosexuality is normal is the same thing as beeing bullyied and that’s wrong. Where is our right to our own opinion, it’s being taken away.

      • Karolyn

        Are you one of those people who think that kids will “turn gay” if they learn about it? That’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard; and believe me, I’ve heard them all! Actually, you would probably be amazed at how many kids do experiment with the same sex even though they are hetero. (Even Christian kids, as evidence by what’s going on in one of the high schools here in the Bible Belt.)

    • Ted Crawford

      If your arguement is appropiate to defend same sex marriage, to be fair and level the playing field, as Obama wishes to do, it must also be applied to the laws against Polygamy! Polygamy is also an act between consenting adults and by your logic must also be legalized!

      • Karolyn

        For consenting adults, why not?

    • HH

      Liberty? I want liberty but I don’t want the gay agenda to be shoved down my throat like it’s being done now. I believe it to be against all laws, physical, spiritual and natural and it’s wrong to shove it down my throat trying to tell me I’m wrong in the way I believe!

      • Karolyn

        It’s all about “Live and let live.”

  • Wyatt

    What amazes me is how people deny that God exists . What do we have five or six thousand years , possibly more in the belief of one God ? And as a religion , the Hebrew faith is the oldest existing . None of the other ancient religions exist any longer other than in the history books or their mention in the Bible . Gods laws are handed down to us via the Ten Commandments and by way of the Bible text . He once destroyed the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for exactly what the White House now endorses .

    I have nothing against people of the gay persuasion , it is there choice and will have to atone to their maker on that day . But to say that it is OK is to go against Gods Law and is an insult to God fearing people everywhere . It is also placing oneself above God and they to will have to face God on the day of judgement . But then I suppose that being gay himself , the fearless leader thinks he can do as he pleases .

    • Karolyn

      People can believe in God but not the Bible or be Christian. Taoism started in the 4th – 6th century BC. That’s Before Christianity. What about Buddhism? It’s 2400 years old and also established before Christ. There are more. Google it.

    • Robert Smith

      From Wyatt: “None of the other ancient religions exist any longer other than in the history books or their mention in the Bible .”

      Really? I’ll bet there are some Pagans out there who will disprove your little claim easily.

      Rob

  • Jeremy Leochner

    So Rand Paul is not preaching hateful dogma. He is simply comparing supporting gay marriage to giving up on 6000 years of tradition as well as the family as we know it. He is not saying he hates gays but he thinks that gay marriage will destroy tradition and the family. Sounds like a mixed message to me. Supporting gay marriage will not destroy tradition or the family as we know it.

    • MAP

      Jeremy, prove that assertion. Removing prayer from school and the removal of all Christian symbols wasn’t to have any effect either. But I have seen our standard of morality decline to near the animal in my lifetime. Crimes are today commonplace that were unthought of in my childhood. The sexual revolution was to have no side effects. Now the family is almost destroyed with the majority of babies are born to single parent homes. Leftist indoctrination in our schools was to have no effect, but now the majority can neither read nor write. Forgive me if I doubt you statement. If it works out like the rest, we will be a nation of queers and perverts. This idiocy has to stop somewhere.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        map removal of prayer from schools did not cause moral degeneration. There is a lot of moral relativism in the world today but prayer in schools would not change that. The sexual revolution did have consequences but I do not believe anyone said nothing would happen. I personally come from a single parent home and I consider myself and my family very strong and loving. Being a single parent with a child does not create problems in society. There is no leftist indoctrination in our schools. Please give me an example of something taught in all schools that can be proven to have no basis in fact and is something only people on “:the left” believe.
        Homosexuality does not lead to immoral decisions. Such a view is not based on judging people on their actions but on their orientation. Our nation will not turn into a nation of queers and pervs if we recognize the right of gay people to get married.

      • MAP

        Jemery says, “There is no leftist indoctrination in our schools.” With that statement you have entirely destroyed your own credibility. There is no need to continue the discussion.

      • Karolyn

        Please, MAP. There is nothing new under the sun. There are just more people now and we hear about EVERYTHING.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        MAP:I went through the public school system. I never learned anything that was not based on sound evidence. Where is it that leftism creeps into schools. Where is it that leftist ideology controls what teachers give to their students. Give me an example.

    • Ted Crawford

      Jeremy
      An arguement offered by Earl Warrens Supreme Court in defence of the removal of the Ten Commandments from all Schools ” If they are allowed to be posted, the children might feel compelled to read them. If they read them they might feel compelled to obey them. therefore they must be removed from School property ”
      Call me crazy! That’s the exact arguement that I, in spite of my Diest beliefs, would use if I wished to argue for their posting to be mandated!
      The decisions of the Earl Warren Supreme Court has very definately been a major factor in the moral degradation of our youth!
      Nothing, absolutely nothing happenes in a vacuum!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I do not believe anything happens in a vacuum. I do not believe the ten commandments are the deciding line. I do not believe in the judeo christian god and I have certainly taken his name in vain. However I still consider myself a decent law abiding person.
        I personally would disagree with that argument by the court, However I still do not believe that not having the ten commandments in our schools is what makes the difference
        between morality and immorality. People still choose their own actions. I like to believe there is a right and wrong that is beyond our ideas or beyond our decisions but that does not stop people from choosing how they act. Whether the commandments are in schools or not people will still have the power to choose not to obey them. I believe not having them in schools does little to no harm. A person can still be a good person whether or not they are followers of christianity. I do not need the ten commandments to tell me killing, stealing and lying is wrong. I already know it. And any decent person would know it too.

    • Robert Smith

      From Jeremy: “Supporting gay marriage will not destroy tradition or the family as we know it.”

      Do you mean all those right wing christians aren’t going to start pimping their daughters and getting the pregnant like Lot dod?

      Apparently they should be doing those things because Lot was the only good guy in the who mess of a couple of cities.

      Rob

  • Dad

    Aside from being misinformed, the ignorance and bigotry towards the Judeo-Christian posts are almost Nazi-like. Seems like we heard this same message coming out of Europe in the late 30′s.
    Terrorists indiscriminately kill innocents… including women and children… sort of like the brand X guys. Since the gays are not particularly into procreation, I can see where interest involving women or children would not be much of a concern… thus the analogy.
    I guess it can be summed up with… “It’s all about me.”
    Personnally, I don’t particularly care… with unemployment over 20%, how about a plan for creating some jobs for the majority of people.

    • Karolyn

      How can you say gays have no interest in women or children. Gay men can be the best friends women have; and gay men do adopt children.

  • FEDUP!

    (offensive words removed) ROBERT! You are a problem! How dare you call ordinary people with these views The American Taliban. This is why the NDAA is so wrong! People like Robert would abuse it any chance they could!

    • Robert Smith

      From FEDUP: “How dare you call ordinary people with these views The American Taliban.”

      It’s very simple when they try to force their views upon others throught intimidation and laws.

      Rob

  • Catlanding

    When all is said & done, the only people who will really benefit are the divorce lawyers.
    No one was stopping gays from co-habiting. It was only because the state stole marriage
    from the church (as a private vow, with a blessing from God) that the gays wanted in.
    The whole thing has become a matter of government benefits. Notice how no one cares about ‘separation of church & state’ when the church, or religion need protecting. Unless of course, you’re talking about a religion of oppression. That’s the only type they want to
    stamp with approval.

    • 45caliber

      Cat:

      It isn’t all about government benefits although many want them. That could be accomplished by a civil union – which is basically a contract with the government, not a marriage as set up by the various religions. The problem is that they want “acceptance” by the rest of us. As one stated, he wants to see parents happy because their son was asked to the prom by another boy. Acceptance means less resistance to sex when propositioned, among other things. And to achieve that, they want marriage because marriage is done through the religion. They want to force change in the religions to accept gays, which means forcing the religions to set aside the laws made by God. And the easiest way to force that change is to first insist they have the right to marriage and then get laws passed requiring churches of all religions to perform the marriages which of course means the religions cannot declare this the sin that God has stated that it is.

      • Renée

        Acceptance is one thing but no matter what they do, they won’t be able to change who God is. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Forcing someone to accept you isn’t acceptance at all. It causes bitterness and resentment. The gov. wants it’s hand in all aspects of our lives and this is just one more way for them to step in and have control. It’s none of their business, they said so themselves by separating themselves from the church. They can force the law but they will never change God. I believe that the hearts of man need to change, to show mercy and kindness but at the same time, I don’t feel anyone has the right to force that. Jesus died for all mankind and we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God but if God won’t force us to love HIM, who deserves to be loved, how can man force others to love them and they haven’t done anything to warrant it. The key word is force here. Everyone deserves to be loved, just not by force and that’s what happens when the gov gets involved and it suites their agenda.

      • Robert Smith

        45 gets it wrong again: “And to achieve that, they want marriage because marriage is done through the religion.”

        Piffel… Atheists can and marry in America all the time. Quit telling them they are living your religion when they are married by a Justice of the Peace.

        Rob

  • Richard B.

    The bible says there is but one God, ” I am the Lord there is no other “I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; Isa 4:5 Many times God tells us this in the scripture: There is no other God besides me. There is no other God that has made the claims of the God of the Bible, none. Creator and sovereign over all things.

    • Robert Smith

      Then that same silly god says that no other gods should be before him.

      Please tell us which one is the “true” god.

      Rob

      • http://PersonalLiberty Alondra

        The silly Robert Smith all over the place with the same illogical and unintelligible mumbled lefty talking point.

        • Robert Smith

          So, the brutal right wing christian god declares himself to be #1 and doesn’t want his flock paying attention to any of those other gods.

          Please tell us which one is the “true” god among so many.

          Or, is it one god and some of his followers are screwed up beyond recognition?

          BTW, if that there brutal god gives people “free will” who are YOU to take it away?

          Rob

      • http://PersonalLiberty Alondra

        robert smith requests: “Please tell us which one is the “true” god.”
        The UNIQUE and ONLY TRUE God of the universe is the God Who revealed Himself thru the chosen Jewish people. His revelation is well recorded in the wonderful book – BIBLE – which in spite of the lefty’s hate for IT still very much alive thru centuries and millenniums.
        There are NONE evidences of any gods thru human history. None multiple gods from the pagans Greek or Egyptian mythologies revealed or confirmed self-existence.
        Robert, read BIBLE. IT gives knowledge and WISDOM, which you are so in need. Stop expose your unsustainable and indefensible ignorance which in addition is so poisoned by hate for the TRUTH.

        • Robert Smith

          Posted: “None multiple gods from the pagans Greek or Egyptian mythologies revealed or confirmed self-existence.”

          Well, if you are going to limit it just to those folks… But then again, a strong case has been made that Odin was REAL. The legendary Norwegian explorer, Thor Heyerdahl, was on the research trail of another legend. He was checking out the Viking God, Odin.

          He believed that Odin may have been a real king in the 1st Century BC in what is now southern Russia and he accumulated some very interesting support.

          Check it out at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1353343.stm

          I know, I know. NO need to get thor about it.

          Rob

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    “Gays” SHOULD NOT TRY TO FORCE HETEROSEXUALS TO LEGALIZE THINGS THEY CARE ABOUT. IN AMERICA, THE MAJORITY ORIENTATION IS HETEROSEXUALITY. THESE “gays” SHOULD BE HAPPY THEY DO NOT LIVE IN AFRICAN- OR MIDDLE-EASTERN COUNTRIES WHERE HOMOSEXUALS ARE MURDERED, BEATEN AND INCARCERATED. STOP BEING GREEDY!

    CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    • Robert Smith

      Christopher says: “THESE “gays” SHOULD BE HAPPY THEY DO NOT LIVE IN AFRICAN- OR MIDDLE-EASTERN COUNTRIES WHERE HOMOSEXUALS ARE MURDERED, BEATEN AND INCARCERATED.”

      Oh Christopher I’m so proud of you as an American that you will let a gay person live!

      Rob

      (the other garbage sucks though)

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Robert Smith,”

        THIS SITE SHOULD PROVE TO YOU HOW THE OPPOSITION CLEARLY FEELS; WHY FORCE THEM INTO SOMETHING THEY DO NOT WANT? HOMOSEXUALS CAN LIVE FULL AND HAPPY LIVES WITHOUT LEGALIZED MARRIAGE AND CIVIL-RIGHTS. THE “gay agenda” IS TEARING HETEROSEXUALS APART. [Can't you see that!].

        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.