Defender of the Constitution, could win it all!

Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
lol, you lose.

in ronald the bigot's own words....

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.
Click to expand...
The common Paulbot response:

 
deprave

deprave

New Member
The common Obamahead response: Pictures and Childish Fits, Can you even use words? Can you even name one point? Nope...Just big bags of emotion...no intellectual capabillity whatsoever.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
deprave said:
The common Obamahead response: Pictures and Childish Fits, Can you even use words? Can you even name one point? Nope...Just big bags of emotion...no intellectual capabillity whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.​

 
deprave

deprave

New Member
UncleBuck said:
Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.​


Click to expand...
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)


Q: On gay marriage. You've been quoted as saying, "Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society." And you've expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
A: If you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn't be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this.

Q: 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 US military?
A: 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


That bill was written by Ron in the 1970s. This was before the research that was being done and released in the 80s/early 90s that indicated possible biological links to homosexuality. It is entirely conceivable that Ron's attitude toward homosexuality was changed by the findings of these studies; he is, after all, a doctor by trade and would understand the science/biology behind it. And he does cite in that interview I posted in my previous response to this his "medical background" for not being judgemental about homosexuality.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
deprave said:
Do you not know what an earmark is?

Also do you not know what a bill "summary" is?


Now, since you have been defeated and resulted to childlike Name calling and feet stomping lets get back to the video, please name one relevant point...Not one of you has been able to produce one relevant point..(hint: You can't because there isn't one in this video) You guys seem to think this is "THE VIDEO"
Click to expand...
Did you watch it?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Somebody took it out. That is some BS, the Paulbot army is covering up all anti Paul info.

*edit* oh here, I found it.

[video=youtube;Ds7CPNwizco]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds7CPNwizco[/video]
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
deprave said:
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)


Q: On gay marriage. You've been quoted as saying, "Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society." And you've expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
A: If you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn't be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this.

Q: 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 US military?
A: 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


That bill was written by Ron in the 1970s. This was before the research that was being done and released in the 80s/early 90s that indicated possible biological links to homosexuality. It is entirely conceivable that Ron's attitude toward homosexuality was changed by the findings of these studies; he is, after all, a doctor by trade and would understand the science/biology behind it. And he does cite in that interview I posted in my previous response to this his "medical background" for not being judgemental about homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top