Ron Paul on Horny Heterosexuals and Homey Homosexuals
Ron Paul, who last year voted to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy after initially opposing the change, recently told the Iowa State Daily that straight service members are "causing more trouble than gays" with their disruptive sexual liaisons. The Texas congressman did not mean that heterosexuals are especially horny or indiscreet, just that there are more of them:
Everybody has the same rights as everybody else, so homosexuals in the military isn't a problem. It's only if they're doing things they shouldn't be, if they're disruptive. But there's…men and women getting into trouble with each other too. And there's a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they're causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same.
The Hill notes that Paul also has offered a fiscal argument against the old policy:
"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said to The Washington Post. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."
Regarding gay marriage, Paul told the Iowa State Daily it is not properly a federal issue, and he seemed to advocate the separation of marriage and state:
The government has no business in your private life, you know, so if one person is allowed to do something, so should everyone else. The whole gay marriage issue is a private affair, and the federal government has no say.
That sounds similar to the position taken by former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who says, "I support gay unions. I think the government ought to get out of the marriage business." None of the other Republican presidential contenders would say anything remotely like that, of course. But recall that last time around even the Democrats, including Barack Obama, felt constrained to emphasize their opposition to gay marriage (although Obama did promise to let homosexuals serve openly in the military). Obama has said his position on gay marriage is "evolving," but the most recent version still puts him to the right of Paul and Johnson.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Oh, for heaven's sake: Another Paul-Johnson comparison?
Oh, for heaven's sake, Reason: why even mention Gary Johnson? Can't you be more like everyone else and just pretend he doesn't even exist? Fall in line behind the Good Doctor, the only candidate that matters!
Well, Johnson is the choice of the KOCHTOPUS.
Reason Magazine is populated by country club libertarians and LINOs.
Hence the unceasing Paul-Johnson comparisons.
Hey, can I join you folks on the links?
Um, even if this is so, what does that have to do with the Paul-Johnson comparisons? What's wrong with that? They'll get compared by reason because they're easily the two most libertarian of the Republicans running for prez and probably the two most libertarian prez candidates out there, period.
Marraige/Civil Union...they're both goddamn benefit rackets as far as the government is concerned. Let's just formalize it into a contract law, abolish all benefits by them and have everyone go on their merry (or not so) way.
Or just remove any government recognition of who is mated with whom.
No polygamy! We need to protect our children from that sick way of life!
Tu quoque. So what's your point?
And end AFDC and child welfare laws. They're your kids, take care of them or not, it's your choice, and your genes.
Oh, yes, the other way of decribing "political expediency": evolving views.
"My views on Peace are also evolving."
I think this is an example of his young supporters rubbing off on him (and he has said as much before).
Re: Apatheist,
Nobody needs to hear about your wet dreams, A.
supporters rubbing off on him
Ewwwwwwwwwww.
You two must be those perverts the government keeps warning me about.
Why don't you gambol over here and say that to my face!
Officer, am I free to gambol about sloopinca's and OM's lawns?
**bing**
You are now free to gambol about the country.
Okay, that was funny as hell.
Ive been thinking that for about 48 hours. Pisses me off that someone beat me to actually making the joke.
Re: Apatheist,
And since the government only tells the truth, you should take heed of their warnings!
Speaking of gays and Ron Paul, has there be any further work done on the theory that Fred Schneider is Ron's estranged first son?
My Own Privatized Idaho?
Da derpity derpity do.
Fuckin' hell, I loved you in Surf Ninjas!
Schneider has my favorite "coming out" story ever. He worked up enough courage to finally tell his mom he was gay while she was vacuuming. "Oh I know, Freddie" and went back to vacuuming.
Yes, but Paul is a gold-fetishing, anti-Fed, anti-UN, anti-State, global conspiracy theorist nut!
And racist. Don't forget to play the race card.
Is the race card always a spade?
No, the clubs. You know how "them" always hit the clubs.
No, it's diamonds. "They" always have them in their grillz.
DAAAAAAAAAAMN!!!!!!
I think Paul's appearance in Bruno should indicate to everyone exactly what his position on this is.
Also, I think Romney could crib a phrase from Obama, and describe every single belief he claims to hold as "evolving".
Re: Gojira,
Why would the scene of a man trying to sexually assault an elderly person be evidence of Paul's stance on gays, marriage and the military? Could you elaborate on that?
Yeah, because if I recall correctly, Paul wasn't as, um, "receptive" as Bruno would have liked.
In the director's cut, Paul totally went for it.
It was a non sequitur.
I suppose one could infer that he isn't rabidly anti-gay, given that he probably had to sign a release to allow that scene to be shown in the film, but I think that'd be stretching.
Paul's position is that he's a Texan man whose response to being propositioned in a hotel room is to simply walk away, muttering some appropriate animadversions under his breath. Try that stunt with most other Texan men and see what happens!
Bruno?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahy9Y5LPhVk
I'm looking forward to that shithead pushing someone over the edge someday. I just hope it's captured in megapixel splendor by several people so I can enjoy it many times from a variety of viewpoints. SBC is ideologically hostile to libertarians and purposefully targeted Paul for that reason.
Oh, lighten up, chris. I do agree Paul handled that with aplomb.
Romney could crib a phrase from Obama, and describe every single belief he claims to hold as "evolving".
Well at least that would be more honest than calling his claims "Intelligently Designed"
Too bad the PC world of government does not work the same as on Ron Paul's Rainbow Puppy Island.
These days, homosexuals are part of the protected liberal plantation. If a homosexual makes an accusation, it must be true. If a homosexual is cited for an infraction, say burning down the on-post house of an officer that he was having a relationship with, he is assumed to be "persecuted" for his homosexuality and his wrongdoing is secondary.
I think it goes even deeper than that in the team Blue camp.
I suspect that once gay people share the full benefits and privileges that heterosexual people have, (IRT marriage, adoption, asset transfer and legacy rights,) Team Blue is afraid they will start voting with their wallets and will abandon their "champions" in droves. They have a vested interest in keeping gays slightly out of reach of full equality so as to keep them on the plantation.
Shit, they've been doing the same to Blacks, Hispanics and Wimminz for decades.
Very true. Anybody who leaves the plantation gets tarred and feathered. Hell, Juan Williams didn't even get near the plantation gate and they are still dragging his ass down the road.
Just look at every black individual that chooses to be a conservative or a libertarian. The vile hatred spewed by the left towards those individuals is scary.
As far as the left is concerned, they OWN those black votes, and any black who votes anything other than a straight D ticket is a runaway slave.
And the racial grievance whining from the right is precious.
Look, one of the plantation masters came in for a visit.
If you are upset that minorities won't join your political movement, how about you start with not describing them as stupid/brainwashed?
The plantation owners are the only ones who use stupid/brainwashed in the way you describe. See also cartoons of Condoleezza Rice for Blacks as portrayed by socialists.
I couldn't give a fuck if they join Team Red or not, as I couldn't give a fuck about those assholes, either.
I'm fine with Condi being treated that way, John, because she deserves it.
Why are you afraid to denounce your president for being the worst murderer of Africans of any American president in history?
Well, there are some nasty Republicans that are really prejudiced and against O-Bomb-you just because he is half-white.....I am completely preoccupied with that and can't think of anything else....
Joined it. Love it. And I hardly feel disregarded or considered inferior, though I acknowledge that some people in ALL political movements hold racist or supremacist views. If Team Blue wants my vote, they are free to offer me freedom. Otherwise, they can piss off.
I hear there are openings for TSA agent airport gropers. Why don't you apply?
I think this is changing, bit by bit.
Right on, Double D.
Yeah, I just laugh it off, man. This isn't Stormfront. Some minorities are not put off of affiliating themselves with something simply because there aren't already a lot of minorities involved.
Got alot of pent up anger there John. Maybe you should spend some time with your "friends" on Rainbow Puppy Island. That outta calm you down.
For one thing, isn't it inappropriate for an officer to be having a relationship with a subordinate no matter their genders. In your probably fabricated scenario, one homsexual gets victimized (having his house burned down and receiving no justice) at the expense of the other. So even in this scenario it's net neutral "the homosexuals."
Even if the government is too PC it is in no way an excuse to continue to discriminate against homosexuals.
A, are you the resident humorist?
Who said anything about the ranks of the men being different? However, it was a Field Grade Officer and an Enlisted man tryst. On-post housing at Ft. Campbell was government owned when this real situation happened too. The MSM framed it exactly as I said. The aspects of superior officer and arson were just a side show.
Linky, please? And I'm gonna need a little more mainstream than MSNBC, thank you very much.
Ok but explain how "homosexuals" are being treated special when one got screwed over and the other got off light? It is a zero sum game, for every bit that one guy gets let off lightly the other one is gets screwed.
I don't care how the MSM framed it, only what actually happened and the actual punishment. It seems you would agree that relationships between different ranks are appropriate and may be a mitigating factor regardless of gender.
I assumed that they were different ranks because what would be the point of mentioning he was an officer if not. I assumed correctly. You basicly did say that they were different ranks.
I of course agree that noone should be treated special because of their sexual orientation. It still isn't a reason to ban homosexuals from the military any more than being PC about minorities being an excuse to ban minorities.
*inappropriate
So you already know about this case and you are just trying to be a pain in the ass.
I'm only going off what you provided. As you have yet to provide a link, it is all I have to go off of. You claim that Homosexuals are being treated special but the only evidence you provide contradicts your claim. If your point is that we need to keep the PC people from making the rules then I agree and apologize. If your point is that getting rid of don't ask don't tell was bad then I don't.
Who cares how the media paints it? All that matters is consistency across the UCMJ. Paul's position is exactly right (or exactly the same as mine, at least).
When will the white heterosexual male get a break?
What do you care?
You're not the real Tony!
I am the real Tony, as I only care about my fellow homosexuals and anyone who isn't white.
In other words, I'm a bigot.
All unions should be gay. Who the fuck wants a gloomy union? Not me!
They already have all of Hollywood unionized. What more do you want?
Re: John Tagliaferro,
'
But are their unions gay? Hopefully they are because, if not, what a drag!
[swoons]
If there is not enough union drag in Hollywood for you, try Broadway.
[stumbles to fainting couch]
If there is not enough union drag in Hollywood for you, try Broadway.
You would know.
if not, what a drag!
I had a dog with no back legs named Cigarette. Every morning I would take him out for a drag.
I heard the Iron Worker's Local 399 is very gay.
We work hard, and we PLAY HARD!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icIwKaci3MI
Obama's not "to the right" if it's in comparison to Paul and Johnson?whose position, like pretty much all their positions, is what we used to call "libertarian," which is, despite the embarrassment of you White-People libertarians, The Right.
WITH PALIN
Re: ?,
Maybe if you read the statement, you would become aware of the fact that Jacob means Obama is to the right of Paul and Johnson when it comes to gays and marriage.
Everybody knows Obama is on the other side of Paul and Johnson when it comes to economics and fiscal policy - the wrong side.
"Maybe if you read the statement, you would become aware of the fact that Jacob means Obama is to the right of Paul and Johnson when it comes to gays and marriage."
Actually I think his point was that Paul and Johnson's position gay marriage is a position on the right, and that Obama's position (and those of other Republicans) isn't necessarily right of that but possibly left.
I guess it's bash on Ron Paul day. How did "disruptive" become a euphemism for sexual liaisons? All Paul said was that heterosexuals cause more trouble than homosexuals (in terms of total numbers). How did that become being "especially horny or indiscreet"?
RP's phrasing my be rubbing the cosmotarians the wrong way.
I'm not sure why Shrike hates RP so much when RP vigorously defends Shrike's "lifestyle".
When did Paul start defending douchebaggery?
The douchebaggery platform is already taken:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10.....ld-ablaze/
There are only two valid reasons for govt to have anything to do with marriage - 1) to protect children in the case of divorce and 2) to protect a financially dependent wife in a divorce. Neither of these concerns have any relevance to a "gay marriage,"
Therefore, there is no reason for the federal or local govts to have anything to do with these bogus marriages. They are a non-issue. As for the military, they were forced to take females and mix them together with males by act of Congress. You can't blame them for all the problems, which they (and not Congress) saw would result. Trying to defend gays in the military because females have caused problems is not a plausible defense. We want the fewest problems, not the most.
derp
WTF is a "financially dependent wife?". Is that code for someone who is unskilled and/or too fucking lazy to find a job once the gravy train is cut off?
**rifles through divorce decree**
Oh yeah, I guess it is.
That's not exactly fair. There are plenty of husbands who make enough money to support their families and want their wives to stay home to take care of the house and children, have a hot meal waiting for them when they get home from work, do errands, etc. These are not skills that most employers require. But suppose this ungrateful husband cheats on his wife or beats her or just decides to divorce her. She took care of the house, so yes, she is entitled to some portion of his income to sustain a living.
Gay people can adopt children. Wasn't that an aspect of the first gay divorce in the US?
As for the military, they were forced to take females and mix them together with males by act of Congress.
Point one here. Everything in the military has something to do with an act of congress. See Article 1 Section 8.
Point two. The congress sexually segregated the military, then removed a portion of that segregation, but not all of it.
Unrelated point. Racial desegregation of the military was begun by Barry Goldwater, not Harry Truman.
"...Homey Homosexuals"
Racist?
Homey Da Homo does have a good SNL-esco ring to it.
I don't think so. Homey don't play dat!
Getting government out of marriage is, of course, a copout, since the only thing anyone is talking about is equal government treatment of marriage. I don't know why libertarians think they are forbidden from entering into any kind of relationship they want and calling it whatever they want. Still, can't really fault RP, I don't think he is pandering to christianists, just being his normal idiotic self.
Plantation owners will spout anything to preserve the status quo. Rule number one when reading a socialist: none of their words mean anything, especially to them.
If you are upset that minorities won't join your political movement, how about you start with not describing them as stupid/brainwashed?
See? My rule always applies.
What is preventing normal everyday minorities from leaving the "plantation"? Last I checked one isn't forced into a political party. So you must be claiming that minorities are brainwashed or ignorant because they've overwhelmingly chosen the "wrong" team.
Couldn't possibly be the oppressive hostility toward all minorities in the other team...
Yep, rule one for reading socialist rantings always applies.
How convenient for the Limbaugh zombie that arguments can be dismissed based on who's making them.
Yet another example of leftist "debate" technique.
It won't hurt you to attempt to address the point.
That would require thought -- and thinking hurts!
The Derider|10.27.11 @ 8:17PM|#
That would require thought -- and thinking hurts!
Since you have no possible way of knowing, I'll just let you in on the truth that thinking does not hurt.
Is at least the warmonger that Limbaugh is, but Obama has the Launch Button. And Obama has secret wars going on that you never even heard of....
Bullshit
Getting government out of marriage is, of course, a copout, since the only thing anyone is talking about is equal government treatment of marriage.
The question still stands, Tony, why is the government "treating marriage" at all?
Because people like having legal rules for child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.?
The leftist handbook for logical argument is composed of nothing but bad argument technique and invalid logic from Logic 101 and Debate 101 textbooks.
Contract law doesn't apply?
Wait a sec... there are already rules for child custody. If I shack up with my girlfriend and we have kids out of wedlock, there are rules for that. I agree they're different if we get married (I assume). Removing the government from the marriage game would, admittedly require some changes to how couples divide property, but I don't see that as a barrier to dropping the government from anointing my relationship with someone.
....and dammit....I will be wearing white when I have mine!
Those "rules" require a marriage license, in part - along with a lot of other paperwork.
Get rid of one piece of paper, and - wait for it - you have one less headache, paperwork-wise.
Why are you against this, Tony? Why are you so hung up on a permission slip, let alone one you must pay money to obtain?
http://www.weddingcram.com/pla.....ements.htm
I found costs from four bucks to a hundred dollars FOR A FUCKING PIECE OF PAPER, required to get "married".
Again... why are you insistent on keeping this archaic, ridiculous remnant?
Aside from the religious aspect, marriage is a mutual, voluntary, private contract. The government should neither imply nor impose any provisions or restrictions on it. It falls under the inviolability of the private contract. How, exactly, is that a cop-out?
I guess that's fine with me. Convince the straights to go for it and I'm on board. Until that time would you settle for equal rights?
Many of us "straights"* are "for it".
Convince your fellow heterosexually-impaired** practitioners, and get some other shit done instead of bitching about a piece of paper.
* you might as well use the term "breeders", but whatever floats your boat, dude.
** shooting for politically-correct terminology here. I never know what's verboten from one day to the next.
I'm sorry you have such anxiety over word use. Those of us who aren't thinly veiled bigots don't have such anxiety.
The day a majority of heterosexuals want to give up government benefits, and they secure that in law, is the day I'll be OK with no marriage rights for gays.
Until then I prefer to deal only in politically viable options. It's a mystery why you can't concern yourself with that reality even for the sake of argument.
Go fuck yourself, asshole. You are not using the word "bigot" correctly, as it does not apply to me.
It does, however, apply to you - as you admitted a while back you don't like straight people.
"Getting government out of marriage is, of course, a copout ..."
Nope.
"I don't know why libertarians think they are forbidden from entering into any kind of relationship they want and calling it whatever they want."
Does this preposterous, non sequitur of a straw man point to anything remotely relevant?
RP has shown himself to possess a sliver of pragmatism on certain issues. Why is it so hard for some to say government shouldn't specially recognize marriage, but until the day when it's abolished we should have equal legal rights?
Libertarians already agree with that, and it's probably been said many times. Knowing that the government isn't going to drop the mandate that I acquire a license from them so I may have a "proper" relationship with someone, yeah, everyone should have the right to obtain that license. No argument with that.
Spoken better than me.
RP is for gay marriage, as long as the people entering the marriage don't "impose" their relationship on anyone else. (Interview w/ Stossel, 2007)
Does he think gays are going to kidnap young boys and forcibly marry them?
I think the fear is that religious institutions may be forced to recognize (and/or perform) said marriages as some sort of condition from the government. We're seeing some of that already in the argument over contraception and Catholic hospitals.
The problem is the government strings attached in the first place, but then we're back to the problem of the optimal libertarian situation vs. the current reality.
Then get the ceremonies done by those willing to perform them.
If I owned a church, it would be up to me to decide which marriages I'd want performed there. As it should be.
I know at least half a dozen Wiccans who love to perform bonding rituals. There must be thousands more out there.
Then again, without the "need" for the permission slip from the government, anyone can just say "we're married" and be done with it.
Their legal rights would be equal if marriage was treated like the private contract it really is. The parties rise and fall with whatever they peacefully consent to in writing and own the consequences. Like any other private valid contract. Presto, sounds fair to me.
Still hung up on the marriage permission slip, Tony?
You can call it "whatever [you] want", but government controls who gets the bennies from marriages they sanction as "legitimate".
Get rid of that, and - eventually - even you would have one less thing to bitch about.
The government has no business in your private life, you know, so if one person is allowed to do something, so should everyone else. The whole gay marriage issue is a private affair, and the federal government has no say.
The most disappointing thing about the whole gay marriage thing is that the gay community didn't seem to take this position. They fully embraced the, "Tax us! Regulate us! Set us free!" position.
Sadly, it all came down to getting the right people in charge, and making sure the regulatory state regulated everyone.
Oh, and welcome to "community property".
Amazing how quick some couples were to try to technically get out of their marriage status while the issue was in flux.
Ouch. I'm guessing Haught brought... property into the marriage, and Carrejo, not so much.
To be fair, I have no doubt in my mind that Haught's divorce attorney cooked that one up rather than him. Of course he had to agree with the strategy.
Applies to abortion too
How is the sin of homosexuality not a government issue when the Founding Fathers executed them?
lol
How is the sin of homosexuality not a government issue when the Founding Fathers executed them?
Homosexuality is not a sin but a biological condition. The more pregnancies a female carries the likelihood of a gay child increases. Ergo, God invented homosexuality though creating our bodies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....rientation
I 'm not sure which Founding Father had gays executed? Perhaps you have confused 'banging' with 'hanging'?
We should shoot some arrows into Rectals anus....if she lives she has medicine.
Don't deceive yourself with those lame excuses. The framers executed at least two people--one in 1785 under the liberal Ben Franklin, and in 1800 in Connecticut.
Then whu does the federal goverment rule on that issue?
Glad to know not all the Republican candidates are homophobes. Hope he ends up being the one to run against Obama.
I remember some street interviews Robert Mencia was doing with gay people about gay marriage. He finally got one guy to admit that essentially they had the right to be as miserable as straight people.
"And there's a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they're causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same."
Paul's assertion in the first sentence is based on a fallacy, just because there are more heterosexuals in the military it does not logically follow that there are more problems with heterosexual behavior (it may be true, it just does not necessarily follow that it does). His second assertion is just as fallacious. What are problems with heterosexuals and homosexuals are different. One of the biggest problems with heterosexual fraternizing is deployed servicewomen getting pregnant and having to be rotated out. An issue with homsexuals is having to bunk with soldiers of the same sex. The problemscaused by heterosexuals and homosexuals are substantially different, so saying that there should just be the same rules treating everbody is facile thinking that blithely ignores the actual issues the military faces.
His first assertion may be a fallacy, but it is also correct.
You're right that gays and straights pose different problems in many ways, but treating everyone the same does not ignore the issues the military faces. All incidents are taken on a case-by-case basis anyway.
I saw first hand what went in '90-91 in Saudi Arabia with the hetros. Woman Marines sent home for prostitution, many females sent home pregnant (many married and not deployed with their spouses), lots of inappropriate stuff that had a real impact of unit performance.
It was always a relief to get out of that soap-opera in Riyadh and back into the all-male Infantry battalion.
The military is not a jobs program. This was a mistake.
To Modern American Progressives it is an ideal jobs program. The more war the better it is for jobs, jobs, jobs.
Cannons and Rockets and Missles, Weeeee!
Missed a chance for a Love and Rockets reference.
Paul/Johnson 2012!
I'll tumble 4 ya
Off-topic anti-seriousness break!
Meat Cthulhu - Epic Meal Time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ITsGZJustI
Sawce, bitches.
Bonus:
Gay Bacon Strips.
http://media3.teenormous.com/i.....ite.v3.jpg
Are you sure Sullum? Because Chapman told me Ron Paul was a racist and homophobe.
I'm disappointed by the lack of any Shore Leave references.