36 Comments on “Sen. Rand Paul on gay marriage”

  1. For those who were confused. He believes that the law should really have no place in it, but he believes in Traditional Marriage. So on a political standpoint he believes let you marry who you want, on a personal level, he prefers traditional marriage.

  2. He didn't even say that he didn't want gay marriage. What he said was that there is room for "traditional marriage" ALONGSIDE other marriages (polygamy, gay marriage, etc), but "traditional marriage" is the only one that should have religious context (what he means is that a priest shouldn't be forced to marry a lesbian couple). If you looked deeper into his ideas, you'd also find that he doesn't believe that marriage should even be a legal thing. He thinks that married people shouldn't get any tax benefits or anything like that. Argue all you want about him, he is the only libertarian politician left in America. It is a shame that he won't be president.

  3. There's no such thing as "gay marriage." It's an obscene and absurd term. It is self-contradictory nonsense. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. No cultural Marxist BS can ever change that.

  4. The solution is simple: Abolish the concept of government-recognized marriage entirely. Do not give special privileges and tax breaks based on an arbitrary status such as "marriage", "civil union", or "domestic partnership".

  5. My solution to same sex marriage issue:

    1) Stop calling it marriage. Lets call it civil union or something that can't get conflated with theological concept of marriage.
    2) Define civil marriage not as a right, but as a privilege bestowed by the state to a couple who choose to raise children. This would effectively prohibit opposite sex couples from getting married who do not want to raise children and allow same sex couples who want to raise children to get married. Why? Because it is in the interest of the state for its citizens to raise children. And in the absence of scientific evidence that shows a negative effect from being raised by a same sex couple, I see no reason why a same sex couple can not adopt children and be rewarded by the state with a marriage contract. They deserve it more than the opposite sex couple that has chosen not to raise children.

  6. What kind of libertarianism is this??? "I believe government should leave you alone but marriage has a religious connotation to it" – Take your religion and fuck off! This is a secular country and our laws should not be determined by "religious connotations"

  7. What he's saying, or trying to at least, is that the Government should have no say in who you marry. They shouldn't even know who you marry because marriage has always been a church/religious event. It only became political when it became convenient for taxes.

  8. I believe church and state should be separate and leave the institution of marriage alone. Around half of all marriages in America end in divorce anyways. I don't care if gays and lesbians want to get married, as long as you leave the church alone and as long as the church leaves gays and lesbians alone. We do not have to force churches to accept or participate in gay marriages. I live in Nevada and we legalized gay marriage in 2014. and guess what? churches are not being forced to host gay weddings. The religious sector has not been affected by legalizing gay marriage. You still get to practice your religion and run the church and still have the freedom to say no to gay couples. weather you like it or not, that's how it should be done.

  9. No, you cannot "have both." Modifying the word "marriage" with the word "gay" alters the meaning of the word "marriage," redefining the very parameters it stands for, and weakening it to the detriment of civilization. If you do not understand the importance of traditional marriage to the well-being of civilization, read George Gilder's "Men and Marriage."

  10. Marriage IS a religious ceremony, what is the point of marriage if you're secular? Your word doesn't mean anything because you're not living to a moral code of conduct, so you're more than likely going to get divorced in a few years anyway. The Government should have no role in the area of marriage.

  11. Fags for states rights 2017!
    Marriage shouldn't be controlled by the government anyway!
    Just let me adopt kids and pay the same rates as everyone else!
    Just leave me alone, protect citizens rights, and don't let people harm each other!

  12. Of course Bland Paul believes in gay rights… being gay himself. And furthermore…zzzzzzzzzzz, zzzz; zzzz! zzzzzzz? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz & zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, – zzzzzzzzzzzz.

  13. Stop calling it marriage and call it "domestic partnership". That has no religious connotation, it is a purely economic term. Problem solved.

  14. Marriage should never be a state issue. Neither should the state forbid gay marriage (like religious conservatives want), nor should it subsidize it (like progressives want).
    Both options amount to oppression in practise and both will be unnecessary costly. Marriage between consenting adults should be a privatized matter, that is decided by each individual church or other religious institution.

  15. It's a bit hypocritical to say marriage is religious to say the gays and lesbians can't get married, but yet institutions like divorce are fine – which is against religious values. Also – argument from tradition despite being a fallacy, also isn't even true: while religions have concerned themselves with marriage, through most of history the ownership of marriage has largely been the state. The Catholic Church didn't define marriage as a sacrament until the 12th century AD as part of the condemnation of the Cathars; it was in the 15th century that they began taking strong ownership in it, and that is part of the reason for the 16th-century Protestant revolution – particularly the Anglican Church.

  16. Im a Libertarian BUT im also a Christian so im against Gay marriage.. lol this literally means you are not a Libertarian!

  17. we need to start a gofundme so his neighbor can punch him again.

    your religion is bairly thousands of years old and doesn't hold weight towards any law, period. as a matter of fact, basing laws on religion is unjust in the u.s.

    it's time to stop voting in these cousin-fuckers, for real.

Comments are closed.