Ron Paul

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the institution of marriage altogether. He doesn't believe they should be recognized by the state.

Every Libertarian I've ever met has been an ignorant teen/young adult that hear he's for legalizing marijuana (and all drugs in general), and then willfully ignore everything else he has to say. The other people are white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, they just hate government.

First off, he's unconditionally opposed to abortion. Doesn't matter if childbirth will kill the mother, it's totally unacceptable. He believes birth should be determined by God. He also doesn't believe in the 1st amendment's establishment clause of the separation of church & state. Obviously not someone you want to vote for if you aren't Christian.

Ron Paul wants to abolish nearly every state institution/organization. This includes the Departments of Education, Development, Energy, Commerce, Interior, Housing along with the FBI, CIA, FDA, just every federal law enforcement and regulatory organization. This means murderers can simply cross state lines and be free. It means there is no intelligence agency defending the United States. No FDA means there's no one to make sure your food, water or meds are safe to consume. No regulation also means no one to keep an eye on unethical business practices such as banks being able to do anything they want with your money. If you don't like what they do with your money, then you should find another bank, this is Ron Paul's philosophy. He believes that the economy will regulate itself, which is absurd because if it regulated itself then there wouldn't be any need for these regulations in the first place.

A Ron Paul America would be a nation without any real federal government. States would be nations unto themselves.

THANK YOU



For a second it seemed the whole internet had jumped on the bandwagon

mfw i finally understand who that is in the picture and why you included.

It's true that Ron Paul doesn't believe in full separation of church and state, but that's because he believes that religion can create a moral basis. Personally I'm an atheist, and I don't agree with him in this case, but every politician has his downsides.

On abortion, it's also true that he is very much against it, however he also claims that the ninth and tenth amendment does not grant a federal government to legalize or ban abortion. He instead believes that these decisions should be made at state level.

Now, onto the economy. Ron Paul doesn't want to "abolish" those institutions/organizations. He wants to create cuts. This does NOT mean that when "murderers can simply cross state lines and be free". In fact, I'm pretty sure FBI and CIA, was not on his list of economic cuts, unless it's part of the "10% federal workforce cut". However, if you find a source, I'd be glad to see it, I'll admit I'm not 100% on this. The FDA on the other hand would receive a 40% cut, not disappear completely. Also, it's not that the economy will simply "regulate itself", it's that Ron Paul believes in a free economy. A socialist government would never work in economical terms. He understands that the more freedom there is within an economy, the better it works. That's why Ron Paul was able to make his famous predictions, he understands the economy better then most other politicians.

I also believe in Ron Paul's idea of a small government, where it upholds necessities, instead of imposing on the freedom of the country.

Sorry there's a mistake:

This does NOT mean that when he goes along with his plan, "murderers can simply cross state lines and be free".

I thought most younger people were Liberals as opposed to Libertarians.

You've been watching CNN i see lol

I don't watch TV, nor am I an American. I'm just a Canadian well versed in American history and politics.

Ron Paul is not against national defence. He even wants to use space to utilize national defence needs.

Do you really think the FDA runs about all day making sure the water is safe for all the poorer people?

do you really think the FBI are only interested in catching murderers and dangerous criminals?

" He believes that the economy will regulate itself, which is absurd because if it regulated itself then there wouldn't be any need for these regulations in the first place."
That's kind of his whole point. Regulation would be good if it was legit maybe, but it never is.

"States would be nations unto themselves"

Ron Paul would be commander in chief of the army. He would control that. It's also my belief he would have control over the tax rates which would be significantly lowered. If you localise power you will get more accountability and better democracy.

States would still work with each other very much. In Britain for example, we have different countries and no FBI, but if a murder kills someone in Scotland and jumps over the border to England is he safe? No, because police forces within our countries work and communicate with each other.

I don't know where you're getting this from. Ron Paul advocates massive defense cuts, creating a small standing military supplemented by militia.

No food or drugs go on the shelves without FDA approval. Everything is tested to make sure its safe for consumption and legitimate. Prior to the FDA, it was far too common to find people selling miracle tonics or spoiled meat (which killed people). There are licenses needed to sell meat now, and they're regulated by the FDA.

Yes, that's what the FBI does. They do interstate law enforcement.

How are regulations not "legit"?

Federal taxes would be largely eliminated. Under Ron Paul, there would be no income tax. Nearly all your tax dollars would go straight to the state government.

Ron Paul does not advocate large defence cuts at all. And he specifically said that in a debate about Space exploration

Ron Paul advocates pulling a lot of their troops back to America from all their military bases around the world. This saves money, but how is it cutting defence money? Do you think these bases around the world are "defensive"? If not, you can't claim he is cutting defence.


Ron Paul wants a LARGE military. Just as big as it is now. The only difference is he wants them stationed around America instead of other countries.

I dont think i'll convince you about the FDA and FBI so i'll agree to disagree and i do think it's less of a black and white argument, but if you think Ron Paul wants to cut troop numbers you are wrong because time after time he has said that he does not want to do this.

Sir, you're severely misinformed. You need to take a gander at his positions. I don't know where you're getting this from.

The FDA and FBI are necessities, it's why they exist. Both organizations have existed since the early 20th century. Local and state police forces are confined to their jurisdiction. The entire United States is the jurisdiction of the FBI. If it wasn't for the FDA, companies could be selling miracle drugs that say they cure things like hair loss, but just ended up causing liver failure. As I said, prior to the FDA this was a widespread problem. If you don't see the value and necessity of these organizations, than I feel sorry for you.

Something existing does not prove it's necessity

I get his positions from listening to him. He does not want to cut troop numbers. Apart from he wants less generals.

So a police force in State A couldn't communicate with police force from State B? Is that impossible?

Do people still suffer from food poisoning? Yes

People do still sell drugs that have all sorts of worse side effects than the thing they are meant to be treating. Anti depressants can cause suicidal tendencies. The FDA does f all about this because the drug companies that make them are so rich

You should take your own advice. You're defending Ron Paul because you identify with Libertarianism. You evidently know little about him, and Libertarianism.

He doesn't believe in the separation of church & state, this is fact. He can call himself a strict constitutionalist all he likes, but I don't see him defending the clause that Blacks are only 3/5 of a human being. Ron Paul is a human, he's infallible and it's disheartening to see such a radical being treated as a paragon.

You've been deeply misled if you think Libertarianism is "social liberalism" and "fiscal conservatism" (both of which are unique and complex ideologies). Libertarianism is little different from Anarcho-Capitalism. The single difference being Minarchism. Libertarians believe in total civil and economic liberty. Ron Paul however styles himself as a "Conservative Libertarian", which is because he believes in some restrictions, such as outlawing abortion. I've found that when teens/young adults like yourself say they're a Libertarian, they really just mean Liberal.

White Supremacists can indeed be Libertarians. Just because the look down upon other races, doesn't mean they advocate subjugating them. Contemporary white supremacists just want a racially homogenous society (whites only).

History has shown us without fail that laissez-faire doesn't work. It's disastrous, always. Financial institutions and corporations are by nature predatory, which is why regulations are needed. Journalists already don't do their job and are legally free to intentionally lie all they like. You think journalists would do a better job in an unregulated economy and be capable of forcing banks and companies to change?

You think society would be better if there was no organization preventing companies from using leaded paint in toys or if investment banks were free to take extraordinary risks, which creates bubbles that inevitably crash the economy?

I'm not using hyperbole. Everything I've said is entirely true.

Honestly, I was going to respond to all of that, but this thread has sort of...exploded...and I don't really feel like adding to it. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. You don't like Ron Paul, so don't vote for him. Other than that, what can I say?

In response to your argument about journalism: Yes. Journalists are entirely capable of doing their job in a relatively unregulated economy. As a matter of fact, the muckrakers of the Progressive Era did EXACTLY that. They brought news of corruption and malpractice to the masses.

However, I will concede that Yellow Journalists, those who came before the muckrakes, did exactly as you predict.

It is also entirely note-worthy to add in that the muckrakers worked FOR reform.

Only replied because you asked the question in the first place. :)

*Hitchens

The 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

The term "Separation of Church & State" is from Everson v. Board of Education.

Government sha'll not prefer one religion over another religion or religion over irreligion.

Yes it is. It's on the original Bill of Rights.

The first amendment in its entirety: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Furthermore, this is the same Bill of Rights that says Blacks are only 3/5 of a person. The Bill of Rights contains the original first 10 amendments. The Constitution is also composed of multiple documents, not just the Bill of Rights.

Separation of church & state is a phrase that expresses the 1st amendment and its religious clause. The supreme court ruling was over whether or not it applied to states as well and not just the federal government.

Also, you can't just dismiss any amendment that's not in the original Bill of Rights, otherwise slavery would still be legal and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

It' says it quite clearly in the original Bill of Rights, the document which now sits in the National Archives. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I don't know where you get the idea that it means congress is free to make laws respecting a religion. To give context, read John Adams's (The second POTUS) address to the Barbary States.

Furthermore, many of the founding fathers weren't even Christians. Most were Freemasons and Deists. Freemasonry symbols can be seen on American currency. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were all Deists. Ever heard of the "Jeffersonian Bible"? It was Thomas Jefferson's bible, it was a small, thinly thing because it had the vast majority of the pages ripped out of it. He ripped out every page he didn't like.

You might want to stop commenting before you're drowned in red thumbs.

Yes, it does say so in the constitution. The constitution isn't a single document, I'm not sure why you're not getting that. It's composed of multiple documents throughout the history of the United States. I'm not sure what you think the constitution is.

The federal government banned gay marriage in 1996. The US has always been a deeply religious country, but Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc were always feuding among one another, they distrusted one another and so there was no unified Christian identity. Not until abortion and gay marriage became hot topics in the 20th century, did these religious groups band together. Bill Clinton for example is regarded as most religious President in US history, due to how frequently he went to church.

Gay marriage however is a state-by-state issue and will remain so until its brought before the SCOTUS.

Where are you getting this regulation stuff from?

Oh dear Minerva you're retarded.

oh shit awesome
he will fuck up all of obama's "changes"
wait "promises" is a better word, wait
"shit he puts on his do to list when his time in presidency is running out"

seriously he isnt that good i mean osama bin laden's death sure but do you even know the shit hes done, the law during new years eve or the reasons why he did not support a specific bill made by congress because it did not give him enough power, WHY THE FUCK ARE WE STILL AT WAR STILL?
IM not saying hes a bad person compared to romney
im just saying that "change" will BE A WHOLE FUCKING LOT FASTER IF YOU VOTE FOR RON PAUL. HE WILL GET SHIT DONE

wow

<-- this entire thread

How in the fuck did you get 75 green thumbs. Oh because Funnyjunk is full of retarded teenagers who are for "Legalizing pot maaannnn." That's all they see Ron Paul for. The stupid drugs. He's not going to make it. Romney is, and if Romney makes it, then Obama is guaranteed presidency. Ron Paul is just a senile old man that doesn't know shit about shit.

i don't know why you have negative thumbs cause you are right. that's how everybody at my school is like "Dude Romney gonna legalize the pottttt hells yeah bro."

Exactly! They don't even look at anything else. Just the Marijuana. That's all they see. They're willing to ruin this country so they do what they do all the time anyway, only thing is they now can do it outside. Whoop de doo.

Didn't read.

this is what i was thinking about halfway through your comment

You're talking about Romney supporters? Look at yourself. Buying into the idiots who want to ruin the country even more. Romney has changed his mind because he gained new knowledge so he adjusts his views based on that. Isn't that what we want? A President who will take knowledge and admit when he is wrong? No, instead we want someone so dedicated to their fucking political party that they only make choices that favor their party. Fuck you. Your kind claim to be open minded, you're just as closed as the rest of us you stupid, outspoken bitch.

i love how anal people get about nation wide political issues that, in the long run, will only affect kids who are testing on these things fifty years from now

He's on the fence. He personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and not more but is supportive of legalising gay marriage. Someone posted a link in these comments to an article which explained. He would allow it but not really approve.

if we left it up to our constitution than gay marriage would be allowed. I seem to remember a bit in that Constitution that says the state will in no time deny equal protection of rights under the law. Hate to break it to you but they're doing just that by denying Gay men and women the right to marriage, and it's not just marriage they're denying them from. It's the benefits that come with marriage.

I dont know why you hate to break it to me, or what youre breaking to me. Im pro-gay rights. According to the constitution it would be up to the states, a state would outlaw it, someone would sue, then after enough lawsuits there would be a supreme court case. After enough of those, it would be made clear that it is protected under the equal protection clause of i believe it is the 14th amendment.

Sorry expected some troll remark. So many fucking controversial issues on funnyjunk today. Getting trolling and just a good guy mixed up. Always nice to see a fellow gay rights supporter on the internet. Our of curiosity. Are you straight or lgbt?

straight

Romney is an asshole and deserves to burn in a thousand suns. Gingrich is an idiot and Santorum is just beyond moronic. The only republican candidate I would ever even consider voting for is Ron Paul.

You just don't like him because he's a Republican. I'm sick of you stupid liberal douchebags calling all Republicans stupid and ignorant without knowing your facts. You know who has done a good job in Massachusetts as a governor? Mitt Romney. You know who has doubled our national debt and not improved our economy at all? Obama.

Gingrich is an ok politician, but isn't a good person. I agree with you about Santorum though.

Romney keeps bringing personal beliefs and religion into his continuum bullshit. "It goes against my beliefs." He keeps saying. WHEN YOU'RE IN POLITICS NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS! He's a dumbass.

Really? Every Democrat every has invoked their social views which hold zero ground if they were to be elected (at least at this point) to win over voters. The fact that Obama said he's for gay marriage means NOTHING. This doesn't impact our government in any way. No bills to legalize same sex marriage are going to go through for a very long time. And I've never heard Romney use "it goes against my beliefs" as an argument.

Then obviously you havent seen alot of his interviews. Because yes he has said that and it pissed me off. Romney wants to get rid public schools, wants to kill off all poor people. He has no idea how to run a country. Also he believes he will win presidency by the mormon vote alone. He is an uneducated religious man. I don't see him winning. Not one bit. I know people who say they despise President Obama but if Romney is his competition they will vote for Obama because Romney will be the next Bush.

He doesn't want to get rid of public schools, he has been painted by the liberal media as someone who doesn't like poor people, and he ran the state of Massachusetts very well from what I heard.

Mitt Romney did not do a good job in Massachusetts. As the governor there, he was ranked #47 in the nation in job creation within the respective state. People think he'll be good for the economy. That's a load of bull. He'd make it worse for the average American.

Oh, and Obama did not double the national debt. At all. Not even close. He increased it by 2 trillion, and set it on a path of cuts so that it will increase by a smaller amount each year. That's something that Republican presidents never did. Because of military spending, Reagan and both Bushes all increased the national debt individually more than Obama or Clinton. Don't just spew shit out; look at the facts.

Another fact check. Romney came into office as Massachusetts was 50th in unemployment rates, and when he left office it was 12th. Massachusetts was also one of the twelve states that between 2003 and 2006 accelerated its job growth by at least 20,000 jobs each year. Massachusetts also became the number 1 state economically under Romney, with the second place state being about 10% lower than Ma.

What were you saying about him being bad for the economy? Because it seems to me that in Massachusetts he really helped out and was a great governor.

Check your facts. The national debt increased by $5 trillion. It increased $2 trillion in his first year of presidency or something of that nature, so that's probably how you got it mixed up. It may not have doubled, but it went from $10.5 trillion to $15.5 trillion. That's almost a 50% increase. Also, as of March, he has put us in more debt than Bush did during his presidency. It is also projected that if he gets reelected, at the end of his second term the country will at $20 trillion in debt.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5744/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

It's all in that article. I assume you trust CBS News as a credible source.

Re-make the comic with this guy.
<--- He's the one against gay marriage until he miraculously changed his POV the other day.
If you don't know who that is, it's Barack Obama.

Uhh, Obama has never been against it. Obama believes in the first amendment. All men are created equally. Republicans (especially with Romney and religion) thinks it's against "The will of god." Fuck your will of god. Keep religion out of government and this shit wouldn't happen.

if you paid attention to politics or the news you'd know that Obama did not support gay marriage. This changed recently when he declared his support of same sex marriages. And I never mentioned God so I'm not entirely sure why you did. Cheers, mate.

"Republicans think it's 'against the will of God.'" Don't generalize Republicans like that. That's like saying all Democrats are anti-business pro-abortion anti-rich people who favor high taxes. It's not true and is simply a stereotype.

Not every Republican opposed it because of religion, and Obama said (if you watched the interview in which he announced it) that he used to be against gay marriage and thought Civil Unions were enough.

He wasn't against it. He just didn't think it was enough to care about. If he was WHO CARES! He is now and that's all that matters.

It's just a ploy to get voters. He's trying to make the election more about social issues because of the large amount of socially liberal independents. He obviously couldn't win them with what he's done with the economy. Honestly, I think the American public needs to stop focusing on social issues that don't even effect them and focus on candidates who can actually improve the economy. Even if Santorum was President, there's no way he could have acted on any of his social views (for the record I don't like Santorum, I just used him as an examples).

Obama has done alot. The things he hasn't done or the things that have messed up our economy haven't been entirely his fault. The Republicans keep shooting down his good ideas. He picked the Auto Industry up off its ass, he (not he himself but hes in charge of the military) took out osama bin laden, he wants to give poor people free health care so they don't die because they dont have enough money to pay their bills. Obama actually cares about the people. Also he wasnt the one who imposed tax breaks to the people who dont need them.

Our national debt has DOUBLED with him. And don't say it's Congress's fault, because the President is the one who sets the budget, Congress just appropriates the funds. And Universal Healthcare is a very bad thing. In theory, it looks perfect, I'll agree with you on that, but in reality it is very flawed. In countries with UH, waiting times are ridiculously long, medicine is often rationed between patients, and the general quality is bad. That's why many people end up coming to the US for medical procedures. And I'm not talking about what I've just heard, I've heard many stories from people from those types of countries about how they had to wait months for simple operations and such.

You forget that Congress has to approve the budget. They could have told him that it was stupid and denied an expensive budget, but they didn't. Granted, I feel a good bit of the money didn't really do anything productive, but at least he's trying. Look at what happened the last time a president refused to do anything about a failing economy- have you ever heard of the great depression? While it sucks that it's going to take forever to pay off this debt, we're not going to recover in the first place if the government doesn't give a shit about us.

For most of Obama's presidency the House was controlled by Democrats and the Senate was always controlled by Democrats. And Obama's plans haven't worked, and actually backfired on us. As of March of this year, he has increased the national debt more than Bush did during his entire two term presidency. That's why I think we need to bring in a Republican who has experience reviving a state's economy and facilitating job growth, as Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. And I have credible statistics to back me up.

I'm sorry, i don't keep up with the news anymore as our two party system frustrates me to no end, but what we need is a president who knows how much to spend to make sure our economy doesn't fail, but who knows to spend less so that we don't keep accumulating debt . But that's not enough, we need a president who won't ignore the main topics of the era, somebody who will give in a bit to what the liberals want, such as gay rights and such, but not so much as to break important long held traditions. We need somebody who doesn't change policies simply to keep him/herself in office, but somebody who is doing what is best for the people.

And we need a Congress that is competent enough to refuse the President if they think there could be a better way to do things, but won't counteract the president's every move just because he/she belongs to a different party.

Sadly I know that even the greatest presidents of all time only have a few of those attributes. Basically, with few exceptions i feel like voting in politics is just choosing the lesser of two evils.

I think Romney embodies more of that than Obama does. And I think that social issues mean nothing right now, and the general public is just stupid, buying into exactly what the Democrats want. They want the election to be more about social issues, when it clearly should be about the economy, something Obama has proven he is not good at managing.

it's mostly about the economy yes, but you still can't IGNORE social issues. That's when riots start happening. And sometimes social issues overlap with economic issues anyways.

As i said, i don't pay attention to politics anymore except from what i hear from here and from my friends, because after the debt crises, i found our two political parties actually hurting the nation for each one's personal goals sickening. I'm not old enough to vote yet, so it doesn't matter anyways.

Most of the problem lies in Congress in the first place. The President is mainly a figurehead. Most of what they do is suggest legislation, and occasionally veto. Yes, they help get a lot of legislation on its feet, but Congress is the one voting on it, and except for vetoes, they are the ones responsible for both good and bad legislation. What has been happening though, is that the parties are blindly voting with the president if he is a member of your party, or blindly against him if he isn't. The reason why i hate the two party system is because we don't have as many free thinkers as we should in Congress, just sheep blindly following their party.

(sorry if my logic is jumpy, i'm tired and that's when my logic starts to get gaps in it)

Romney is accused of changing positions: its "flip-flopping"
Obama changes political positions: its "evolving"
What is this guy, as Pokemon or something?

Who needs shirts when you're gay?

YOU MAKE A VALID POINT !
topless from now on ! .. now i will look even more like a pervert

Had to go back and look, he's right.

i know mah shit

Dude really it is atrocious. I find pink stripes utterly tasteless.

early 2000's ... it was a nasty time for the whole striped shirt fad.
I cant deal with that heinous shirt. No gay man would dare wear such a travesty .

I CALL SHENANIGANS

"i'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says shenanigans"

thank god i find pistol whipping comforting

Not ENTIRELY true... he says he'll let the individual states decide. A smart move imo, staying a little more neutral. That was a pretty ballsy move by Obama, giving his complete support

Obama said he personally supported it but was going to leave it up to the states.

well, right. Ron gave no comment in that department iirc..

My bad thought you meant Obama intended to make it legal on a national level.

I have to say, in my opinion, this makes him the better man

He has a personal opinion like everyone else, however he doesnt enforce it upon others like some politicians.

I'd vote for him

Well, there's the fact that he would basically let the states decide on gay marriage. Which basically means he'd allow states like Utah and all the Southern states to make gay marriage illegal. In other words, he's a hypocrite- he doesn't like homosexuality, but he thinks gays should be able to marry, but he'd let the states make it illegal for gays to marry.

Then there's also the fact that his ideas for fixing the economy (getting rid of the Federal Reserve and switching to the gold standard) would basically tank our economy. And he's pro-life, and would allow the states to decide on abortion (which means that a lot of states would ban it). Hell, if the Civil Rights movement of the '60s was still going he'd probably let the Southern states continue to discriminate against non-whites because "lol Imma let the states decide". And despite all the potheads calling for him to be elected, his stance on marijuana would probably be the same thing- let the states decide, which means let the states ban it.

The dude is NOT a good choice. His only decent stance is on foreign affairs- he doesn't think the U.S. should get involved in the affairs of other countries. He's a terrible choice for president, which doesn't matter because I don't see him getting the nomination.

Well yes he'd let the states decide, because things like Abortion and Marijuana aren't things the federal government should care about. The states might ban either because it's what the people would vote for, well vote parties to vote for the legalization.
Ron just thinks that the people should get what they want, and whatever they want is up to them.

Comparing slavery to pot is a bit of a drastic measure. Slavery murders thousands of people and demotes them to less than human standards, pot gets you high.

The bit about pot was just in reference to how many potheads are voting for Paul simply because he thinks people should be able to smoke pot. My original point was the gay marriage bit.

And I don't trust the people to make decisions about civil rights, which is what Ron Paul is basically advocating. They can't and shouldn't always get what they want, because what they want is often counter-productive to society as a whole. Again, if the people "got what they wanted", civil rights wouldn't even exist for non-whites.

I can understand letting the states decide on abortion and pot, but NOT on gay marriage.

So you have no faith in the American Citizen.
I may not get out much, but I know that when someone opens their mouth about how gays are bad, shit comes flying at them so fast.
Believe me, more people want gay marriage than you think, and the ones for gays are raving about how gays are oppressed but the actual amount of haters is practically half.

And the people should definitely decide. The government should never decide what the people should do with their personal lives.
Be careful with your words because " I don't trust the people to make decisions about civil rights" can be interpreted as "I'm a fascist pig who wants the government to rule everything."

Civil rights is very much a federal matter. If we allowed the states to decide, segregation and discrimination would still be legal in the South and even some Northern states. Hell, if we allowed the states to decide, slavery would likely still be legal.

The states should not have the right to decide on civil rights.

"I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function"

I'm sorry, but I think that's the most retarded statement a man running for President could ever make
It's the 21st century. Religion/Church should be completely separated from the state already.
The Church doesn't guarantee any of your rights, the Constitution does.

Anyone saying that Religion>Law should return to the Dark Ages.

By "i think it's a religious function" he's saying that it is up to your religion as to whether or not gay marriage is okay.

And you're okay with religion having a word to say on someone's social/civil status?

The fact that it's up to YOUR religion to determine whether or not SOMEONE ELSE should be allowed to marry or not is more than ludicrous

Know something? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
Read it and maybe you'll realize why the US is so, well, idiotical

I know all of these things. Ron Paul is not saying religious views become laws. he is saying that religions can have their views on it.

I know religion is retarded and it makes me hate this country a lot.

Because when we are poor, homeless and starving... all that is left... is love

Haha, just kidding, its just that like half of fj is fags

Only about 32% of america votes.... even less take the time to care.

You seem to have your numbers wrong. 56% of Americans voted in 2008. And plenty of Americans care about politics because it concerns them, their families, and their whole lives.

He supported a bill to ban gay sex all together. Get your facts straight.

He's neutral. He doesn't care, if a state doesn't what gay marriage to be legal then that's fine. He doesn't want the GOVERNMENT to decide

He supported Texas's anti sodomy bill.

Did I not just say if the state wants to decide then they can. And he did support it, because that's what he wants. For a state to decide for themselves. He supports that.

A government monitoring people to make sure they don't have the wrong kind of sex is not a good thing. Whether a state wants it or not.

ban "GAY SEX" all together........ I thought the subject was about gay marriage' :/

It's about Ron Paul and whether he is really as tolerant towards gays as everyone thinks.

It's the federal governments job to ensure civil liberties even when individual states infringe upon them.

Do you realize that married couples have more legal and economic benefits and therefor more rights? This includes:

joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; domestic violence protection orders; judicial protections and evidentiary immunity and MUCH MORE.

You call that offensive? That is not offensive. What IS offensi ve is taking all these economic benefits and rights away over an ancient BOOK!

You know what I find offensive? All those ways in which the government treats married vs. unmarried people. How about we get the government OUT of marriage, homosexual AS WELL AS heterosexual and then EVERYONE will be treated equally?