I'm more optimistic of Ron Pauls chances after reading this article.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Here is a link to his full voting recorded on key issues, instead of the clearly slanted one you posted.

*I* didn't post any voting records.

I apologize for that, it was a different username starting with "R." I don't have time to to respond yet, but wanted to apologize for that mistake real quick.

[NatsuTerran]

The entire "state's rights" thing has always annoyed me to no end. Human rights should be consistent across the board. I shouldn't have to travel across the country to be treated like a human being with equal rights. Nothing like this should be left up to the states. It's the *united* states of america. I just can't agree with letting "neighbors" live abhorrent lives when we have the knowledge and power to advance better rights for people. To say otherwise is just succumbing to the naturalistic fallacy in that you believe natural/empirical principles are how things should be, and that nature is not there to be corrected. I'm sorry, but no. People should not be allowed to discriminate others or even raise their children inadequately (like extreme mormons) just due to cultural reasons. Equality is an extremely important ideal for a society to me.

This has always been why RP scares me. He's a Republican through and through, except unlike the other Republicans he is actually smart and knows what he is doing to achieve his sickening goals. He knows that many americans agree with him on his social issues and so he wants to take the power away from the Govt., the only entity that can stand up for society's rights, in order for there to be 50 tyranny of majorities going on that will mostly agree with his positions anyways. It's all one big covert scheme to cut our moral progress and keep us stuck in the past like middle eastern countries. Also, what's wrong with leaving some troops behind in the M.E.? I would rather take the operation of leaving Iraq slow and steady rather than packing up and leaving a slew of chaos behind. Surely there are serious consequences for leaving the people over there to fend for themselves?

[ThinkAnarchy]

"He knows it won't be stopped..." yet I saw him saying that he'd rather marriage be an issue for churches and 'private institutions' and not the government. He is 'personally' against same-sex marriage, and thinks that it being legalized is 'forcing' other peoples' 'standards' on him.

Taking it away from the government would be IDEAL for same-sex marriage opponents.

Oh, and there is this.

Here is Ron Paul in his own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UJz81lAwY0M#!

I, like him, believe marriage is a religious issue. It is an institution created by religion and adopted by the state. It's a main reason my wife and I are not technically married. We have rings to symbolize our union, but no traditional contract has been signed and no ceremony has been preformed; either religious or J.P. The issue is that the state controls marriage. He, like me, does not think a couple needs the permission of the state to get married.

Now I disagree with him that the states should have anything to do with marriage, but I think in an ideal world, he would prefer them to have nothing to do with it either.

One reason this view doesn't bother me is that if anything major were to be done about it, the Supreme Court would likely rule it unconstitutional.

Oh, so it's fine just as long as it someday gets ruled unconstitutional. Such things take time, and can take very long amounts of time. We don't need any(more) damage done.

I didn't say it is fine, but I'm confident it would not be successful. Just as I don't think Obama's healthcare bill is fine, I think the Supreme Court will throw out parts of it, if not the entire thing.

Scientific understanding does not seem to be an important quality in a president. With that said, he was a medical doctor, so you can't exactly say anti-science.  

If you deny the very foundation of biology, then it's kind of hard to describe you any other way.

Unscientific people aren't great OGBYN's. He is wrong on creationism, but that doesn't mean he is anti-science. Having the incorrect view on one scientific principle does not equate to being "anti-science."

Here is a link to his full voting recorded on key issues, instead of the clearly slanted one you posted.

*I* didn't post any voting records.

Apologized for this in a different post.

Even though he believes abortion is murder, he doesn't agree with the federal government criminalizing or sanctioning it. The fact he wouldn't support a federal law banning the practice, despite his opposition to abortion, makes me respect him more. He is principled and I know exactly where he stands on issues.

If somebody was truthfully 'principled' and really believed in setting aside their own opinions, they would not be trying to make it a states' rights issue either. He's directly allowing the opposition to hold power over people by law. I'm sorry, but you'd think he would be opposed to that. I seriously doubt he is, though. If every single state in the country voted to ban same-sex marriage and abortion he'd be all for it, I guarantee you.

I doubt it, because principally I don't think he believes any government should have a say about marriage. If governments must, he feels safer having it left up to the smaller state governments. Your claim is unsubstantiated though, seeing as I already provided a link of him voting against a bill to change the federal law of marriage. The law would have made gay marriage essentially illegal on the federal level, defining it as a man/woman relationship.

[Harmonie]

Here is Ron Paul in his own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UJz81lAwY0M#!

I, like him, believe marriage is a religious issue. It is an institution created by religion and adopted by the state. It's a main reason my wife and I are not technically married. We have rings to symbolize our union, but no traditional contract has been signed and no ceremony has been preformed; either religious or J.P. The issue is that the state controls marriage. He, like me, does not think a couple needs the permission of the state to get married.

Oh, I know exactly what he has said about marriage. I based my post on what I saw him say directly.

Marriage was not actually founded by Christianity. The Bible just thought it could come in and define an already existing concept. Marriage becoming a religious ceremony was just yet another adaptation of traditions of the time, much like how Christianity adapted Pagan traditions into Christmas. Christianity has no REAL claim to the origin of marriage.

I don't see Ron Paul's views as noble at all. It's not about a couple not needing permission from the state to get married, it's about taking marriage outside of the government's protection so he can slam the the door right in the homosexuals' faces.

It's not coincidence that now, all of the sudden, marriage is something that the government should have no control over.

Your claim is unsubstantiated though, seeing as I already provided a link of him voting against a bill to change the federal law of marriage. The law would have made gay marriage essentially illegal on the federal level, defining it as a man/woman relationship.

However, what about the fact that Ron Paul said he would have supported DOMA in 1996? That part of the puzzle doesn't fit quite right. It's a federal law. And I'm afraid that seals the deal for me. Either he's a wishy-washy politician just like the rest of them that says things and does another thing, or he's the "Same-sex marriage is a state's issue in regards to legalizing it, but a federal issue in regard to banning it" type which proves my point all too well.

[fester30]

The entire "state's rights" thing has always annoyed me to no end. Human rights should be consistent across the board. I shouldn't have to travel across the country to be treated like a human being with equal rights. Nothing like this should be left up to the states. It's the *united* states of america. I just can't agree with letting "neighbors" live abhorrent lives when we have the knowledge and power to advance better rights for people. To say otherwise is just succumbing to the naturalistic fallacy in that you believe natural/empirical principles are how things should be, and that nature is not there to be corrected. I'm sorry, but no. People should not be allowed to discriminate others or even raise their children inadequately (like extreme mormons) just due to cultural reasons. Equality is an extremely important ideal for a society to me.

This has always been why RP scares me. He's a Republican through and through, except unlike the other Republicans he is actually smart and knows what he is doing to achieve his sickening goals. He knows that many americans agree with him on his social issues and so he wants to take the power away from the Govt., the only entity that can stand up for society's rights, in order for there to be 50 tyranny of majorities going on that will mostly agree with his positions anyways. It's all one big covert scheme to cut our moral progress and keep us stuck in the past like middle eastern countries. Also, what's wrong with leaving some troops behind in the M.E.? I would rather take the operation of leaving Iraq slow and steady rather than packing up and leaving a slew of chaos behind. Surely there are serious consequences for leaving the people over there to fend for themselves?

I completely agree on the states' rights thing.  After the American independence, there were 13 independent countries trying to find a way to come together to make one country.  The only way that would work was to limit federal power at the time, because the 13 countries didn't want to totally give up their autonomy.  Nowadays, with the ease of travel and communication, it's far less necessary and fair to restrict too many powers to the states.  I think it's wrong that you can receive in some cases vastly different punishments for the same crime depending on where you live.  So perhaps a criminal could move to a crime-friendly state?  Some states can disregard human rights because of powers not given to the federal government? 

I personally believe that the function of the states should be in handling things too small for the federal government to be involved in.  All states should have the same laws for crime and punishment, for example, but the states should administer that in local court and police systems.  All states should have the same marriage laws, but the states should administer those locally as well.  I think it's crazy that we can drive across the country and have different road signs in Nebraska than we have in Massachusetts, or that the exit numbers on the freeways are handled differently.  I was driving along Cape Cod, thought I was a few miles from my exit because I saw Exit 12 and I needed Exit 16, but there were something like 30 miles there!