Rand Paul rejects ‘rights based on your behavior’

[Bob N]

Sometimes I actually believe that the good senator from Kentucky not only doesn't have a clue, but he can't even find the stack of clue cards to draw one.

Seriously. Practicing religion or carrying a gun is not a behavior?! :screwy

Rand Paul rejects ‘rights based on your behavior’

...Sen. Rand Paul said he doesn’t buy into the concept of gay rights because they are defined by a gay person’s lifestyle.

“I don’t think I’ve ever used the word gay rights, because I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior,” the Kentucky Republican told reporters in a videotaped interview that has received little attention since it was recorded in 2013.

Admittedly, the senator’s quote is a bit old, though it’s apparently surfacing in earnest now for the first time. That said, a Rand Paul spokesperson yesterday “did not reply to BuzzFeed News’ question seeking clarification on gay people’s rights not associated with their behavior.”

Regardless, the senator’s comments suggest Rand Paul doesn’t recognize gay rights as a real issue at all because, in his words, rights based on “behavior” lack legitimacy.

The Kentucky Republican may not have thought this one through.

By Rand Paul’s reasoning, gun rights don’t exist because buying, carrying, and/or firing a weapon is a “behavior.”

By Rand Paul’s reasoning, religious rights don’t exist because embracing a faith tradition, practicing its tenets, and attending services is a “behavior. ...”

Read the rest at the link.

 

[Verax]

Any excuse will do.

 

[Thrilla]

Sometimes I actually believe that the good senator from Kentucky not only doesn't have a clue, but he can't even find the stack of clue cards to draw one.

Seriously. Practicing religion or carrying a gun is not a behavior?! :screwy

Rand Paul rejects ‘rights based on your behavior’



Read the rest at the link.

so Rand Paul didn't clarify his reasoning, but they went ahead and made arguments supposedly consistent with his "reasoning" anyways.

that's some sound reasoning right there :lamo

 

[Deuce]

so Rand Paul didn't clarify his reasoning, but they went ahead and made arguments supposedly consistent with his "reasoning" anyways.

that's some sound reasoning right there :lamo

Feel free to point out any discrepancy.

 

[Bob N]

so Rand Paul didn't clarify his reasoning, but they went ahead and made arguments supposedly consistent with his "reasoning" anyways.

that's some sound reasoning right there :lamo

What's even funnier is: they aren't in contention for the Presidency; he is. :lamo

 

[Thrilla]

Feel free to point out any discrepancy.

I can no more accurately do that than the author can accurate attribute those arguments to him...

 

[Thrilla]

What's even funnier is: they aren't in contention for the Presidency; he is. :lamo

...more solid reasoning.:roll:
why would you be supportive of concocting arguments based entirely off of ignorance of his reasoning?

I'd like to know what he was talking about myself... his quote confuses the hell out of me.

 

[Bob N]

...I'd like to know what he was talking about myself... his quote confuses the hell out of me.

Brother. You tell me as well as other proper-thinking folks. :roll:

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Rand is nothing but a Republican in Libertarian clothing.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Rand is nothing but a Republican in Libertarian clothing.

I tend to agree. I would offer that Rand Paul is attempting to appeal to two groups that are fundamentally opposed to one another when it comes to this subject.

 

[joG]

Sometimes I actually believe that the good senator from Kentucky not only doesn't have a clue, but he can't even find the stack of clue cards to draw one.

Seriously. Practicing religion or carrying a gun is not a behavior?! :screwy

Rand Paul rejects ‘rights based on your behavior’



Read the rest at the link.

What do you see wrong in that statement? Of course rights are not based on your behavior. They are based on what society decides they should be.

 

[prometeus]

We must thank God for all His creation, including morons and imbeciles, among them Rand Paul. It would be so much more costly to keep them irrelevant if they did not do this type of damage to themselves. It is also good to know that the mindless minions who follow them blindly remain clueless about the self inflicted wounds.

 

[Thrilla]

Rand is nothing but a Republican in Libertarian clothing.

he's an elected Republican.... so.... ummm..... there's that.

 

[DA60]

Should someone who prefers having set with a member of their own sex have equal rights to all others?

Of course.

Should they have special rights?

No.

 

[Montecresto]

Sometimes I actually believe that the good senator from Kentucky not only doesn't have a clue, but he can't even find the stack of clue cards to draw one.

Seriously. Practicing religion or carrying a gun is not a behavior?! :screwy

Rand Paul rejects ‘rights based on your behavior’



Read the rest at the link.

Are constitutional rights based on behavior?

 

[Montecresto]

Should someone who prefers having set with a member of their own sex have equal rights to all others?

Of course.

Should they have special rights?

No.

They're sinners! Their only right is to hell.

 

[ARealConservative]

Rights are individualized.

Gay rights is a stupid concept, because your rights shouldn’t vary based on whether you are gay or no gay. Your rights are based on the axiom you are an adult that can make decisions for yourself.

 

[RAMOSS]

Rand is nothing but a Republican in Libertarian clothing.

I would put it as 'Rand is nothing but a political opportunist in Libertarian Clothing.' His opinions change with the tide and who is he talking with.

 

[RAMOSS]

Rights are individualized.

Gay rights is a stupid concept, because your rights shouldn’t vary based on whether you are gay or no gay. Your rights are based on the axiom you are an adult that can make decisions for yourself.

It's not so much gay rights.. but human rights. If you think that it is bad that gay's are singled out from protection, then it's because their rights are the ones that are likely to get violated.

 

[ARealConservative]

It's not so much gay rights.. but human rights. If you think that it is bad that gay's are singled out from protection, then it's because their rights are the ones that are likely to get violated.

I think it is bad because it obfuscates the meaning of rights.

individual rights belong to all of us and should be the same for all of us, and applying that concept makes the concept of gay rights moot.

 

[RAMOSS]

I think it is bad because it obfuscates the meaning of rights.

individual rights belong to all of us and should be the same for all of us, and applying that concept makes the concept of gay rights moot.

Yet, those individual rights are being violated when it comes to certain groups. I think semantically it could be handled better, but there wouldn't be a 'protected class' if there wasn't persistent violation of the rights of certain groups, based on the fact they belonged to that group.

 

[ARealConservative]

Yet, those individual rights are being violated when it comes to certain groups. I think semantically it could be handled better, but there wouldn't be a 'protected class' if there wasn't persistent violation of the rights of certain groups, based on the fact they belonged to that group.

in most cases, I agree, those rights have been violated.,,,but the rights that were violated were individual rights that we all have.

 

[Deuce]

I can no more accurately do that than the author can accurate attribute those arguments to him...

Cop out. What's the alternative? He only meant sexual behavior?

 

[tres borrachos]

he's an elected Republican.... so.... ummm..... there's that.

You just had to go and do that, didn't you? Don't you know that Rand Paul was doing a great job of pretending he wasn't a Republican until you had to go and mention that. Apparently everyone assumed that "R" after his name meant "Rand".

 

[tres borrachos]

Does the media have a one-track mind these days? How many more stories about gay rights and gay lifestyles are we going to get, I wonder. Now they're dredging up 2 year old quotes to discuss.

I guess this is the biggest and only issue in this country today. Let's not discuss the economy, or Iran, or healthcare, or crimes......no, let's worry about 2 year old comments from politicians about...nothing, actually. His quote wasn't even interesting or noteworthy.