Ron Paul's position on Homosexuality

[Teancum-Old]

This text was taken from another thread in order to keep discussions in their proper bounds... Some also see the need for this discussion because in their view:

Ron Paul supporters here are so quick to bash Mitt about his stance on gay marriage as governor, but when it comes to Ron Paul's unconstitutional vote on repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" you only hear silence,excuses, and justification.

I completely disagree with Ron Paul on Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) yet I do still support him for president. This is my biggest problem with Ron Paul right now. I would have pushed to maintain DADT, not abandon it. Ron Paul is wrong on this. But being a Marine myself (I believe Jason is too ), I can see where DADT may have caused some problems. These are the type of problems Ron Paul said his constituents told him about. Problems where some Staff Sgt. or Gunny (senior enlisted ranks for those non-military folks out there) did all they could to make a homosexual's life miserable. Instead of asking the homosexual directly about his sexual preferences (against the DADT rules) they simply make his life a living hell in order to punish him for his immoral sexual persuasion. I could definitely see this happening. But I still would not have voted to get rid of DADT. This is a tough decision. Ron Paul was on our side before and did flip-flop to the other side on this one. But I can see myself possibly flip-flopping on this had I personally known someone treated this way in the military for their sexuality. This type of treatment I have personally witnessed, but not against homosexuals, since I never knew any in the Marine Corps. But I did see guys who were physically weak, mentally slow, overweight, or smoking marijuana who were simply harrassed to the extreme. I can definitely see authority in the military being abused. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, as you all know... Ron Paul's reasoning for this recent change of heart (flip-flop if you prefer) is something I can deal with unlike Romney's lifle long passion to be a stronger supporter of gay rights than Ted Kennedy.

Looking at this based on the Consitution, we could see this in a few different ways. First, if the Constitution is based upon Natural Law, then homosexual marriage is unconstitutional, plain and simple. Second, if we ignore Natural Law (which leads to other problems), then we could argue that the Constitution says nothing about marriage and only an amendment could preserve marriage between a man and a woman (Ron Paul is against an amendment like this yet the Church has officially supported and asked us to lobby Congress to get and amendment like this passed - see http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6352 ... dment.html). Third, the military is under the Commander-in-Chief, so one can possibly argue its up to the president and no one else. Lastly, we can argue that the military is a standing army and therefore unconstitional in and of itself and side step the whole DADT argument.

This is a difficult issue. What Ron Paul did would be difficult to throw into the unconstitutional camp using arguments 1 and 4 above. These arguments have not been accepted by the black robes for years. That leaves us with arguments 2 and 3. Obviously Ron Paul is against the amendment (argument 2). This may be due to his position on State Sovereignty or it could be because he sympathizes with homosexuals in general. I believe it is the former, since his recent shift on DADT shows that up until now, sympathy for homosexuals was not a big deal to him previously. If so, this is, I believe, where most of us would disagree with Ron Paul. He would prefer to leave homosexual marriage up to the States, whereas most of us would prefer to ban the immoral concept at a federal level. This difference in view could very well result from the fact the we are LDS and he is not. This to me is not a huge gap in philosophy but actually a minor one. Argument 3 is mostly irrelavent as Obama sought congressional approval for his move anyways.

So for me, Ron Paul's vote on DADT was wrong but is not extremely difficult for me to swallow since he is not LDS and I believe his view only to be slightly different from my own. Romney on the other hand (bigger supporter of gay rights than ted Kennedy) has been a life-long LDs sympathizer of homosexual rights and marriage. That is something I am completely at oddds with.

How do you feel about Ron Paul's sudden change in position on DADT? Do you disagree with my thoughts above? Please share.

[Amore Vero]

I believe that we should only vote for one of the most Christ-like people we know of.

For God has warned us that it is the disposition of nearly all men to use any power or authority they gain over others, in an abusive fashion. Thus only the very best of men can be trusted with such power & even then they may still fall, but it's at least less likely.

We need to vote for people who would vote how Christ would vote.

How would Christ vote in relation to DADT? or on any other issue?

[Silas]

Ron Paul did vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows the states the right to not recognize same sex marriages from other states, and defines marriage as it concerns the federal government to be between a man and a woman.

[Mosby]

We need to vote for people who would vote how Christ would vote.

How would Christ vote in relation to DADT? or on any other issue?

I really dislike the "how would Christ vote" argument- but I'll take the bait:

Jesus would do what he did in his mortal ministry- teach correct principles and let people govern themselves. This means he would allow them to be 100% free - free to be righteous or to be wicked.

It's called free agency and it's the key to our mortal experience. It's the essense of true liberty- and think Paul understands this principle as good as anyone that has set foot in Washington, hence his postion.

So you tell me- WWJD?

[Amore Vero]

We need to vote for people who would vote how Christ would vote.

How would Christ vote in relation to DADT? or on any other issue?

I really dislike the "how would Christ vote" argument- but I'll take the bait:

Jesus would do what he did in his mortal ministry- teach correct principles and let people govern themselves. This means he would allow them to be 100% free - free to be righteous or to be wicked.

It's called free agency and it's the key to our mortal experience. It's the essense of true liberty- and think Paul understands this principle as good as anyone that has set foot in Washington, hence his postion.

So you tell me- WWJD?

So does that mean you believe Jesus would allow people to be 100% free to be 'wicked' without any 'consequences, penalties or punishments' from government?

If the Constitution is according to God's laws than wouldn't that make sinful things illegal & punishable?

For no one has the agency to sin without consequences, even on this earth. God sets up leaders in governments & churches to make sure the people receive punishments to help them repent, if they don't obey his laws, civil or religious & to protect the innocent around them.

Even when things are illegal, people still have their agency to follow the law or not, they just can't choose the consequences. Good laws don't restrict agency.

[Rose Garden]

We should be looking for the most Christ-like person to fill the presidency. In my opinion, Ron Paul is that man. He's not perfect but he's more Christ-like than the other candidates. I don't agree with his attitude that government should not be involved in moral decisions at all, but in reality, that attitude has very little affect on the workings of the federal government because the federal government really shouldn't be involved in moral decisions. Those types of situations should be left to the states. Of course, there are a few times when it is necessary for the federal government to make these types of decisions, but otherwise they should be left to the states.

Ron Paul believes in liberty and believes in God. He has a good understanding of where our liberties truly come from. The rest of the candidates in the major parties, as far as I can tell, haven't given much thought to liberty and rights at all. They are focused on being popular and they only give liberty a thought as far as they think it will gain them points in the polls. Ron Paul truly wants to educate people, more than he wants to be president, I believe. That's why I want to vote for him.

Focusing on isolated decisions to determine whether or not a man is eligible to be president is not going to help you find truth in this matter. You need to look at what a person truly stands for and what they have done overall. When a candidate votes all over the spectrum, you can be certain they are more concerned with their public image than anything else. Ron Paul has consistently stood up for his values and boldly publicized them. We know what his values are. Let's judge him on those instead of searching up isolated incidents to which we object. If we do that, there isn't a single soul we can feel comfortable voting for, perhaps not even ourselves.

[InfoWarrior82]

Then there's ignorance. Much different than knowingly going against Gods will. I think that many Mormons unfortunaely fall into the category of ignorance when it comes to politics. Aw heck, many of them actually think they are following Gods will by voting for people like Romney or Reid.