Ron Paul on homosexuals

A couple of things about Ron Paul,

First, this guy makes some serious errors in his reporting of Ron Paul. Ron Paul rarely goes around quoting Scripture and some of the policies he mentions Paul is more nuanced. The author also engages in such irrational argumentation that I do not think it is worth the bytes it uses on the Internet.

This is the one issue I strongly disagree with Paul, but I still endorse him and this was the issue on why I didn't endorse him 4 years ago. Why? I think some of those who are outright Christians have some serious theological issues as well.

I disagree with Paul on two counts. First, I was for the repeal of DADT. It was a nonsensicle law and I found it had no place in the military. We do not have the same criteria for other immoral issues in the military like being of different religions, having an abortion, etc. I am sure some will want all these included, but I don't see there is a limit. The military should be to defend everyone and everyone should contribute to defending everyone.

Secondly, I disagree with him in that I believe homosexuality is a sin.

The issue, though, is what is the role of government. I do not believe we should outlaw homosexuals in our country nor do I think we should criminalize pre-marital sex. This is not the role of government. Thus, I can say that this issue is mostly out of his hands. We need a Constitutional Amendment supporting defining marriage and states should continue to define marriage in their Constitutions. Thus, this is not that big of an issue.

What about the other candidates? I find all of them with hype for some Christian standards, but there are things I find just as appalling. When looking at their records and their beliefs, I think the person most reflective of my views is Paul.

 

I disagree with RP and believe that homosexuality is a sin.
However, I agree with him on the role of government.

 

You all seem to miss the obvious that God took out Sodom all by himself without any help from any government, got the Jews out of Egypt without any help from any government . . . why do Christians think that God needs the help of any government or human agency?

 

Do you even read the other posts in the thread before commenting?

You start out with "you all seem to miss" then state the same thing as the only two other posters to the thread.

Aresman and Ruiz both said that it is not the role of government.

What's your deal?

 

Ron Paul has some good understanding of much of what is wrong with our government but he also has some serious baggage. Because of his stance on drugs and homosexuality and sone other things I would not vote for him unless he was the lessor of two evils. That being said every person running for office has some serious baggage. So most likely, and sadly, I will be voting for someone who is the lessor of two evils.

 

Have you ever voted for someone who was the lesser of two evils? If so, who?

 

George Bush our last president.

 

Wow, I thought he was a horrible President.

 

I am sure some feel that way about him. I would characterize him as a poor one. His opponets I believe would have been much worse.

 

I agree, they would have been worse, but I was just wondering when you didn't vote for someone that was not the "worse of two evils."

 

>Because of his stance on drugs

Any of you watch the PBS show about prohibition? Anyone think the Volstead Act should be brought back?

 

Ron Can Support H@m#s&xuals all he wants...

.....Because I do not plan to vote for him any who!

He is just a little to "wierd (wired)" for me! :laugh:

 

So, if you do not have an intelligent, well thought out reply, you kill the messenger?

 

And it is my position that when all the dirt settles and is examined that he and John Kennedy will be historically recored as two of the greatest of the 20th century and fellow Texan (man that hurts to say) Ron Paul did not and will not ever hold the office.

 

I don't think I killed the messenger. Rather, I noted some of the irrationalities and errors of his reporting and then I moved on to the actual topic. The author of the piece was too far out of bounds and I thought more could be accomplished by addressing the issues instead of addressing the author. However, I wanted to give an excerpt on why I moved from the author to exclusively dealing with Paul.

 

I suppose you could be correct if enough time passes. History has a tendency to lose truth over time.

 

Free, I have not looked at your profile but you must be young in comparison to me! My experience has been that with time the Knee-jerk Reactions die and, except for the X-Generation, the observable truth, like cream in milk, rises to the top.

 

I am sure you have a head full of white hair. Based on your testimony about yourself you sound very mature.