Ron Paul's DADT Reversal
| Fri May. 28, 2010 6:25 AM PDT
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) was one of only five House Republicans to support the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy on gay servicemembers, which passed the House on a 234-194 vote last night. But Paul's vote came as a bit of a surprise. An unabashed foe of gay marriage, Paul had a decidedly squeamish stance on gay rights—even prompting actor Sacha Baron Cohen to ambush the Texas Republican for his film "Bruno." And Paul stated throughout his 2008 presidential campaign that he thought the military's policy should stand, though he had some concerns about its enforcement.
When asked about DADT repeal in June 2007, Paul told CNN:
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.
H/t: salus at AQ
Photo Credit, here.
Once again a principled well thought out approach and decision by Ron Paul, a true libertarian. Regarding gay marriage, Ron Paul is not against gay marriage, he is against the government being involved in marriage at any level. He has said countless times that a contract between two people does not need the blessing of the federal government.
ReplyDeleteLibertarians want to hang onto conservatives, but you belong with the liberals. In the future, call yourselves DEMOCRATS, because that's what you really are.
ReplyDelete"A contract between two people does not need the blessing of the federal government." Therein lies the problem - reducing marriage from a sacrament to a legal contract. Rationalization and secularization are the problems here.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is not Catholic, nonetheless he is the best candidate for Catholics.
ReplyDelete"a contract between two people"
ReplyDeleteThus, legalized prostitution, sodomy, gay clubs, porn and 50 bazillion other sick, anti-Catholic things. It's all about contracts and agreements between two consenting adults, with which the government can never interfere. The concept of 'society' goes straight out the window with the 'victimless crimes' ideology.
The churches are allowed to complain, but not codify their principles in law. Murray Rothbard > Christ the King with these people.
Tired of the whole 'he's better than...' argument. And Mussolini was better than Hitler, big deal.
Your organization should stop referring to aberrosexuals, or individuals who engage in biologically aberrant sexual behavior, as "gay" because it is degrading to me as a gay person to be thought of as an aberrosexual.
ReplyDeleteUsing "gay" in this way is grammatically incorrect and extremely offensive. It crosses the line by comparing men who engage in anal intercourse with happy, normal, orthosexual persons such as me.
Don't you know aberrosexualist groups, like GLAAD and the HRC, coined "gay" as a propaganda term to mask the negative connotations the term "aberrosexual" (aka homosexual) has among the public at large?
Do some research and you will find out the harm you do to your credibility and effectiveness as a pro-Family citizen every time you use the term "gay" to refer to aberrosexuals?
The term "gay" is NOT medically descriptive of a sexual behavior or practice. It is NOT descriptive of a medical or psychological condition. It is a TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC, ANTI-MEDICAL, and IRRATIONAL psychological propaganda term cleverly used to induce a favorable reaction towards an aberrant sexual behavior.
It's also a term of derision.
ReplyDeleteI would rather have Prostitution legalized, than have a State which tells me that MURDERING an infant is a "choice"
ReplyDeleteThe 'conservative' libertarians' whole 'kinda pro-life' schtick doesn't even jive with their 'set the ho's free' mantra. Some vices are a-ok, but not others.
ReplyDeleteOf course, they'd fall back on the 'do no harm' principle, which only seems to apply to individuals. But porn, prostitution and legal acceptance of homosexuality hurts society. Ah, but 'Society' does not exist in their minds, and you can't hurt what isn't there. Yay, magic!
Beautiful.
ReplyDeleteLibertarians have often been termed, fairly or not, "conservatives without the morals". As of late most libertarians are extremely queasy about getting into discussions on moral issues so these are usually buried on page 397 of their publications.
ReplyDeleteAnd this attitude is their Achilles heel. They cannot see that acceptance of moral anarchy will bring down a civilization just as surely as a financial meltdown. This does not apply to all Libertarians but, sadly, to most of them...even Catholic ones, who subscribe to that awful von Mises/Rothbard worldview.
Ron Paul, I suspect, if ever he would get elected, would deal with economic policies first and foremost (perhaps even exclusively), and while that would do some good it would not address the moral rot. As a Libertarian, he wouldn't worry too much about social issues even though he is said to be pro-life. As a Libertarian he is very near to the Anarchist position, as untenable as the Libertarian one, though attractive considering how evil, despotic and downright murderous our own government has become. Personally, I believe our form of government is genetically doomed to failure and I can only hold out hope that something better, somewhere, somehow, could come about. But I'm not holding my breath, either.
The best a catholic in the USA can do now is to work with the horrible system that has been imposed upon us and try as best we can to Catholicize it, and never get caught in the liberal/conservative/libertarian dead end. Either that or pray that one of the legitimate Catholic monarchies of Europe is reinstituted and move there. Other than that, I wouldn't know what to do.
I was interested to read of the correct way one should address the issue of homosexual men. I can see now why the term 'aberrosexual' is not used generally, since it signifies, of course, that it is an aberration of the normal sexual act. But, more interesting for me, is learning of the term 'orthosexual' for straight men of homosexual tendencies, and the fact that they do not approve of the behaviour of 'gay' men. I am also angry that such an attractive term, ie gay, should have been sullified and made quasi unusable in its originally correct manner. But, thank you to 'Anonymous' who put us straight.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAristotle said...
ReplyDeleteAlthough I respect Ron Paul because he is honest and at least a man of principal, my biggest reservation is his very un-Catholic, un-Thomistic understanding of government. In other words, he's true to his principals, but his principals are flawed. This is a case in point.
Government is not a necessary evil. Government is a necessary consequences of man's social nature and the fact that man cannot attain his highest human goods merely as an individual. Madison said once that "if men were angels, they would have no need of government." And yet, as Catholics, we know full well that angels have hierarchy and government. Perhaps this is because angels, as all beings in the universe other than God Himself, have a higher good that is external. This good is God. And so the angels praise him in choirs, doing together what even one individual angel cannot do. As Saint Thomas points out, the higher angels enlighten and teach the lower angels, and so they help each other attain their greatest good, which is God.
It is the same with man, in the Catholic understanding of government. Men attain their virtue as citizens, as pilgrims on this earth, best in union with one another, which is achieved by government.
And this is where the Libertarian errs, it seems to me. The conception of rights as effectively "you can do anything you want as long as you don't hurt me," is short sighted in that it ignores man as a social creature, attaining his good in unison with his fellow men. Viewed thus, governments have every right to regulate marriage, because marriage is an institution of nature that is essential to the family, a building block of all civilization.
The comment that said marriage is no business of civil government likewise misses the point, and for the same reasons.
No one should mistake - Ron Paul's principals, the principals of Libertarianism, are at odds with the Catholic notion of government as expounded, for example, in the Treatise on Law of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
I like him, as I said, and I may even vote for him, but the truth is the truth. In my opinion, it's better to have someone in office who is right 90% of the time by accident than someone who is wrong 90% of the time by design!
FIVE POINTS TO REMEMBER WITH RESPECT TO ABERROSEXUAL SO-CALLED “MARRIAGE”!
ReplyDelete1. All marriages should be gay, i.e., happy, joyful. Aberrosexual (or biologically aberrant sexual behavior) pseudo “marriage” is never gay, but rather SAD.
2. Aberrosexuals, or those who engage in biologically aberrant sexual behavior, can marry in all 50 states, under the same set of rules as everyone else, i.e., they can marry a member of the opposite sex.
3. No one's sexual preference is ever asked when applying for a marriage license in America.
4. Aberrosexualists, or partisans, be they aberrosexual or not, of the anti-Life, anti-Family, antisocial aberrosexual ideology, aren't really interested in legalizing aberrosexual pseudo “marriage.” They're really interested in legitimizing aberrosexualism or biologically aberrant sexual behavior.
5. Aberrosexualists, who we know do not represent the vast majority of respectful homosexual men and women, are not interested in “toleration.” They are interested in forcing society to “celebrate” the irrational, extremist, anti-Life, anti-Family, anti-Christian, antisocial aberrosexualist ideology.
Wow. The ignorance here is staggering - people simple ranting on about things they clearly know nothing about, so they invent their own fictional take on it, or adopt a fictional take from someone else that suits their biases. The above poster, "anonymous", is particularly ignorant. Why do those who know the least feel the strongest about clearly demonstrating that fact by opening their mouths at length?
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that the power-hungry Christian bigots and theocrats can't be satisfied worshipping whatever they choose to believe in and living life according to the principles they choose to adhere to? They always insist everyone else must live their way too, their chosen views must dominate the lives of everyone else, laws must be enacted to enforce that everyone lives by your standards.
I am not a Christian. I do not share your "beliefs" (superstitions) or the pecular set of stunted, immoral values they inform, so beautifully displayed on this page and in this comments section. Many of your views I find repugnant. I believe you should be free to live as you wish, believe what you wish, and practice what you wish, but I live in a free country, and YOU WILL NOT FORCE YOUR RELIGION-BASED EDICTS UPON ME. THERE WILL BE NO THEOCRATIC RULE IN THE USA. I WILL LIVE MY LIFE FREE OF YOUR RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION.
Marriage has not been reduced to a legal contract - marriage has always been a legal contract. You have a very poor knowlege of history if you believe otherwise. Holy Matrimony is the domain of the church. Civil Marriage is the domain of the state. SPREADING LIES SAYING OTHERWISE TO ATTEMPT TO ENSLAVE OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY TO YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS IS EVIL, pure and simple, and, once again, YOU WILL NOT INFLICT IT ON ME OR ANYONE ELSE who doesn't share your views. Not in America, anti-American theocrat traitors.
Theocracy is how they do it all across the mideast. If that's the system of government you prefer, maybe you should move there and be with people who share your support for that.
LIBERTARIANS ARE CAPITALISTIC COMMUNISTS...post that on your car's bumper if you have one?
ReplyDeleteorthosexuality
ReplyDeleteor•tho•sex•ual•ity \ ôr'thə-sĕk'shū-ăl'ĭ-tē\
Noun.
1. The sum of the physical, functional, and psychological attributes of a gender’s biologically correct, natural, normal or typical sexual behavior, conduct or expression.
2. (Biology) Sexual activity, behavior, conduct or expression that is biologically correct, natural, normal, or typical of the male or the female; the sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex.
3. (Sociology) The sexual behavior, conduct, or response universally considered socially acceptable, proper, normal, or orthodox.
4. (Psychology) The psycho erotic attraction to members of the opposite sex; the disposition to sexually behave in a mentally sane and biologically correct, natural, normal or typical manner. The quality of being free of psycho sexual (i.e., aberrosexual) disorders such as bisexualism, fetishism, homosexualism, lesbianism, necrophilism, sadomasochism, scopophilism, voyeurism, zoophilism, etc.
5. (Sexology) The biologically correct expression or response to sexual attraction or erotic arousal; the biologically correct expression or response to one's male or female gender, especially vis-á-vis genitalia and reproduction; the biologically correct or proper stimulation, responsiveness, functions of the sexual organs.
Synonyms: sexual correctness, sexual appropriateness, sexual healthiness, sexual normalcy or typicality, also improperly referred to as “heterosexuality”.
Antonyms: sexual aberrance, deviance, perversion, or aberrosexualism, (homosexualism)
1. Edward thoroughly enjoys and gaily admits his orthosexuality.
2. Only orthosexuality produces sexually well-adjusted, truly gay human beings.
3. Thomas defends orthosexuality as the healthiest and gayest sexual behavior for all members of society.
4. Psychologists point to orthosexuality as the standard of sane sexual behavior.