Ron Paul: Heterosexuals 'Causing More Trouble Than Gays' In The Military

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said that heterosexual military servicemembers were "causing more trouble than gays" due to their superior numbers in an interview with the Iowa State Daily released Wednesday.

"Well, like I said, 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," he said, according to the paper.

Paul was one of five House Republicans to vote for the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which officially ended in Septmber, and among 15 House Republicans in December. "To discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense," he said in May.

When asked by the Iowa State Daily on his position on gays, he said, "You know I just, I don't think of people in little groups like that. I don't think of people as 'gay' here and 'black people' there, or 'women' over here."

"Everybody is an individual person, and everybody has the same rights as anyone else. 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."

Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, which would have added an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage. However, he continues to support the Defense of Marriage Act, which disallows the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions and allows states not to recognize another state's same-sex unions. He has said that the legislation protects a state from having to recognize another state's definition of marriage.

For more details on Ron Paul check out this slideshow:

Comments

[STaR Scream 81]

12:30 AM on 11/03/2011

Ron Paul has to be the most honest up front politician on the planet.

Thats why he will never be president.

[Anna Nicole Dahmer]

06:00 PM on 10/31/2011

Ron Paul/RuPaul 2012.

[joeyfoto]

02:18 AM on 10/29/2011

Ron Paul is a Libertarian — a principled Libertarian, almost, except for his nanny state position on abortion rights — how is that news to anyone?

The problem is that Libertarianism is an absurd idealistic, dorm-room philosophy, that is only held to by exceptionally idealistic people and weaklings who dream of making it in a world that would eat them alive. People are not that tough and independent and those who so delude themselves have very low survival rates. It is a philosophy for fantasy island, where people are not as vicious as some people can be. It is a selfish and predatory political philosophy, which is only practiced by failed states.

Ron Paul is a decent man, he and I could live respectfully as Libertarian neighbors, but his philosophy as adopted by the sharks on wall street, would eat us all.

[Austin Ray Walter]

03:03 AM on 10/29/2011

You state this as a "fact," but you don't know this as a "fact."

[Mikecoatl]

04:24 PM on 10/29/2011

I could not possibly have described Libertarianism better than you have. Don't they realize that, in the end, they are simply trading one tyranny for another? If Ron Paul got his way, all that would happen is that the corporations would step into the power vacuum. Then again, that seems to be happening anyway...

[Austin Ray Walter]

05:25 PM on 10/29/2011

I didn't know that you can see the future.

[Austin Ray Walter]

11:56 PM on 10/28/2011

Why is it that liberals think everyone is INFERIOR in regards to intelligence? How much higher are you going to put yourselves on that pedestal of superiority? If we're so inferior as Conservatives/Republicans, then how come a Democratic Liberal President is destroying the economic and disregarding the US Constitution?

It's not hard to figure out why Ron Paul is the best choice in 2012, and probably the best choice in Washington D.C.--It's because he's the only official in Washington that's answering to the US Constitution before the ideals of corrupted parties.

And yes, Obama is incredibly corrupt (violated more Constitutional laws than any president). If you understood constitutional law, you'd be able to see Obama for the bad president that he is.

[Anna Nicole Dahmer]

05:59 PM on 10/31/2011

and how has obama violated constitutional law? gotta provide some facts sparky.

[Trekkiefandom]

04:51 PM on 11/12/2011

I don't know what you mean by liberals, that is an awfully generalized statement.
current political conservatives/republicans aren't the same ones the help build this country. It was a republican that created our national parks, it was republicans who understood that the rich will still have an easy life whether or not taxes are at 35% or 90%. It was a republican that created the EPA.
The problem being that while a lot of conservatives and republicans talk about going back, they easily forget their past accomplishments that actually helped the United States grow. Now they seem to concentrated on small government, cutting EPA, restricting civil rights of particular rights, dis-regarding science, making the middle class pay because they didn't want to become rich.
The problem is that they are letting the wool be pulled over their eyes to much. Small government isn't a problem because its a made up term. EPA needs regulation itself but its serves a purpose, the gay community are Americans so they deserve American rights, especially since they have public opinion for them. But these things don’t seem to matter, majority opinion doesn’t seem to matter. The republicans of today may have a R nest to their name but they are not actual republicans and conservatives anymore. So the question falls to their followers, why vote for a party that has gone against its greatest accomplishments? Why vote for a party clearly not for the American people anymore?

[raker]

08:46 AM on 10/28/2011

Libertarianism is a Trojan Horse. Along with Ron Paul's benevolent support for gays in the military—such a brave stance after the policy has already been changed!—he and his son would certainly endorse repealing any regulation that would prevent an employer for firing someone for being gay, or for evicting them, or refusing to serve them at their businesses, or to sell them a house, or to be teachers, anything. Ah, glorious liberty.

[indotube]

11:18 AM on 10/31/2011

umm, you are just plain wrong, ron paul voted against don't ask don't tell from the beginning. and give me one iota of evidence to support your claim that : "he and his son would certainly endorse repealing any regulation that would prevent an employer for firing someone for being gay, or for evicting them, or refusing to serve them at their businesses , or to sell them a house, or to be teachers, anything" just another liberal spreading garbage rhetoric in a pathetic excuse to keep one of our worst presidents in history in office

[OhMyBoehner]

11:58 PM on 10/27/2011

No wonder Ron is falling in the homophobe republican polls!

[l78lancer]

09:47 PM on 10/27/2011

Ron Paul is a complete mixture of contradictions and dichotomies. It is evident that he intellectually is is head and shoulders above the other cantidates. It is just as obvious that he has a sense of values and a moral compass. But even when he appears to be in favor of an issue he says something that casts doubt over his complete support or conction for the very same issue. While he appears to not be against gays on the military he was against DADT, for DOMA, and against the Federal Marriage Amendment. So what real value does his opinion of gays in the military have when he doesn't shpport the legislation that would validate that support? He is and will be his own biggest competition throughout the primaries.

[Austin Ray Walter]

11:50 PM on 10/28/2011

He doesn't personally agree with homosexuality. But he doesn't recognize gay military personnel for being gay , he views them as American soldiers first.

[indotube]

11:21 AM on 10/31/2011

he didn't support the federal marriage ammendment because he thinks the federal government has no business in our personal live, plain and simple. if you want to be married to whomever, its not the federal gov't s responsibility to tell you yes or no. how is that a contradiction, if anything you contradict yourself

[l78lancer]

08:23 PM on 10/31/2011

At least understand what his position is correctly. He really supported it because he didn't think it was right for the federal government to force one state to recognize another's law. And even that's not completely true since the federal government does that for other laws. And you are trying to critique my comment...smh. Okay smart guy, where's the contradiction?

[Jerry Callaio]

08:39 PM on 10/27/2011

While I don't agree with Ron Paul on most issues at least he claims to be standing up for Gays in the Military.

However I don't remember Ron Paul saying ONE WORD at the Republican Debate when many in the crowd/audience booed a gay soldier serving in Iraq asking a legitimate question.

So I really am not sure I believe him.......since he had the chance to do the "right thing" yet he remained silent!

[Austin Ray Walter]

11:58 PM on 10/28/2011

What good would it have done to attack the audience for their boo's and disrespect?

[Jerry Callaio]

12:43 AM on 10/29/2011

A REAL LEADER would have stood up to the audience and called them out for disrespecting a currently serving soldier!

That's not attacking the audience that's putting bullies in their place.....and showing maturity to an audience that lacked tact and manners.

IF it were Liberals who booed the soldier.......face facts...... this would be WAY more of a big deal and you know it.

[Vomit The Blue Pill]

08:11 PM on 10/27/2011

The guy is principled.

[SKamath]

06:41 PM on 10/28/2011

Principled Republican, yes.

[MelodyG]

01:40 PM on 10/27/2011

My favorite part of any Ron Paul post is reading the comments by his rabid followers. Hours of entertainment.

[Nic Wilson]

04:00 PM on 10/27/2011

Im glad your getting educated. Who is your candidate, and why is he/she going to help the nation out?

[MelodyG]

05:07 PM on 10/27/2011

Adorable! Right down to the condescending tone. You are just precious.

[cable1977]

09:57 PM on 10/27/2011

I think cult like is a much more apt description. All of the key points are there...veneration of a leader to the point of infallibility...the omniscience of the leader on all issues.

[MelodyG]

11:18 AM on 10/28/2011

And the infallibility and omniscience of the leader the only proof offered to support the views of the leader.

[indotube]

11:31 AM on 10/31/2011

you mean obama's supporters right? the ones that turn a blind eye to the fact he has spent more money than any president in history, that he came from the most corrupt political system in the u.s. (Chicago) and that he just lies through his teeth and wont take responsibility for any of his failures. yeah, you must be talking about obama

[alfredo1]

01:37 PM on 10/27/2011

How many times have a women been raped by homosexual males? I think that number is closed to 0 or less.

[Motter Contest]

02:41 PM on 10/27/2011

What does that have to do with anything? You think gay people are incapable of rape?

[rltballer]

03:39 PM on 10/27/2011

Gay people obviously can rape but typically don't. It's the straight people getting divorced at this high rate that kills marriage. Not gay people.

[MSROADKILL612]

12:18 PM on 10/27/2011

gays make the best soldiers - no camp followers - just ask alexander the great

[sapperdom]

04:14 PM on 10/27/2011

..and even George Washington, according to some scholars.

[pbr56]

04:33 PM on 10/27/2011

stupid comment.

[crablover]

08:54 AM on 10/28/2011

Read your history and get a sense of humor.

[Tuskin Roberts]

09:46 AM on 10/28/2011

Tell that to Sparta.

[Spike5]

11:08 AM on 10/27/2011

I just don't think that someone who wants to run the country should be so opposed to government and the good it can do, the protections it can provide.

I want a candidate who supports an economic policy that helps the blue collar and white collar workers instead of the mega-rich (they don't need any more help), who wants to return us to the time (not so long ago) when we had a tax policy that encouraged upward mobility and education and the salary expectations among boards of directors and executives led to a more balanced worker-to-CEO income level, one who recognizes that individual protections can't be left to the states because people have a right to privacy and respect and equality regardless of where they live, and that 'social issues' belong in the home and the church and not in the government.

Integrity and honesty and education and intelligence--add those to the mix, please. Let's not focus on whether a candidate is faithful to a spouse and rather on whether he [or she, of course] will be faithful to the American people. Let's not focus on whether he goes to church or synagogue or mosque or just plays golf and rather on whether he is compassionate and free of bigotry and prejudice. Let's not care about his sexual orientation and instead care about whether he wants all children to have a healthy start and a good education.

Is that really so much to ask?

[Motter Contest]

01:14 PM on 10/27/2011

Well, it would first be a big help if you understood how business works before you agree or disagree with a candidates views on the matter. If you would notice we have more and more govt all the time and the rich get richer, why is that? Apparently you can't see the connection so you claim the remedy is more govt. Funny that you won't allow people to make their own choices in life yet you would trust politicians who are bought and paid for by the very corporations you despise.

[pbr56]

04:35 PM on 10/27/2011

We had the same problems before the depression. The problem isn't too much government, it is removing regulations like Glass Stegal.

[Spike5]

07:47 PM on 10/27/2011

Here we go again. Because someone doesn't agree with you, he must be ignorant. That's so insulting and such an arrogant comment.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe I and the others who agree with me DO understand how business works? Given that I have a master's degree from a highly respected graduate school of business, I might actually know more than you--hard as that must be for you to believe. I like to think that I learned something in all those classes on management and finance and accounting and economics and statistics and....

I absolutely think we should reduce the influence of corporations on government--but that requires regulation, not magical thinking. The reason the rich get richer etc isn't due to too much regulation but not enough. I absolutely want people to make their own choices--as long as their choices don't infringe on mine.

And I don't despise corporations. What evidence do you have for that statement except your own prejudices? Far from it. I've spent my entire career working with and for various kinds of corporations--from small local to mid-size county-wide to huge multi-national. My parents had a very successful family-owned retail business. I believe in capitalism.

I don't think that government can or should solve all problems. But unregulated and uncontrolled corporations do NOT lead to prosperity for the majority. We need a balance.

[Felix99]

03:58 PM on 10/27/2011

Very well said, Spike!!!!! But, the way things appear to be going in these "United" States, I would not hold my breath!!!! Which is a sad thing to have to say!!!

[gingersaff]

10:40 AM on 10/27/2011

The sticking point here seems to be what the definition of "government" is. To Paul, it's the Feds. State legislatures and governors somehow get to weasel out of being part of the "government", so if a state wants to remove a woman's eyelids to force her to look at a sonogram of a two-week fetus they can. Because it's the state. It's not "government". And if Texas wants to re-institute its former sodomy laws and prosecute a family on vacation in Austin because both parents are male and staying in the same hotel room, they can go right ahead because it's not "government", it's just the state law of Texas. I think we can all see where this is going. Certain states (it's probably not a stretch to assume that they'd be in the south) could end up with many whites only colleges and universities. State income tax codes could penalize working women, and some states could allow the proliferation of semi-automatic concealed weapons and complete destruction of huge amounts of land for mining, logging, drilling, and various other exploitations all in the name of it not being done by the Feds. I'm thinking that in Alabama, you'd get an average hourly wage of about three bucks and could get thrown in jail for having a condom. Oh, and don't forget compulsory religious indoctrination. But it's ok, because it would be the state, and not The State.

[Just logic]

11:09 AM on 10/27/2011

The sticking point is that he believes in the Constitution. Where the government powers hand the state more power and over time the Federal Government has superceeded its power. Your entire arguement is that the States can do whatever they want, which is false This is why the Constitution has the Supreme Court. It was and is designed to make sure all of those issues you bring up is Constitutional. If a law is found not to be then it doesnt happen. So what really is your issue?

[Spike5]

11:16 AM on 10/27/2011

But according to that same argument, we can't count on the Supreme Court to rule that these issues are NOT Constitutional--especially if more conservative and libertarians were appointed to the bench.

After all, that same Court permitted slavery, segregation, and any number of discriminatory laws for generations until FEDERAL laws changed the definition.

[joekel]

11:20 AM on 10/27/2011

paul believes in his own selfish ego and nothing else.

[bizteacher]

08:25 PM on 11/18/2011

I am happily Independent, but I have to say your argument about the southern states smacks of elitism. There has been a huge re-migration by African-Americans back to the South. Black businesses have been more successful in the southern states than anywhere else in the country. We have had not one but TWO black mayors right here in Charlotte, NC within the past twenty years. Can you say that about YOUR city? Your whole argument is absurd, outdated, stereotypical and ridiculous.

[Tuskin Roberts]

10:25 AM on 10/27/2011

Satisfying to see someone in the Republican primaries can take a stand without checking the demographics first. I disagree with about ninety percent of what Paul says, but I'll never say that he doesn't have integrity. If you're a gay republican, Paul might be the best your going to get for a while.

[Just logic]

11:09 AM on 10/27/2011

What do you disagree with? There are pretty sound arguements for his policies.

[Tuskin Roberts]

11:40 AM on 10/27/2011

Oh, I'm sure there are arguments. I just don't agree with either the arguments or his stance on:

1. Abolishing minimum wage.
2. The civil right movement harming the labor environment.
3. Abolishing the federal reserve.
4. Returning to the gold standard.
5. Abolishing the U.S. Board of Education

Among other things. Unlike most Republicans, though, I respect Paul for his integrity, and I do think he has the country's best interest in mind. It's just his mind that I have a problem with.

[pbr56]

04:40 PM on 10/27/2011

Many of the agencies he is against were formed because of problems that occurred under the very policies he is promoting.