Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(170,964 posts)
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 04:52 PM Jun 2013

Post-DOMA, Rand Paul fears humans marrying non-humans

Posted with permission.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/26/19156364-post-doma-rand-paul-fears-humans-marrying-non-humans?lite


Post-DOMA, Rand Paul fears humans marrying non-humans
By Steve Benen
-
Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:03 PM EDT



It seems much of the media establishment has decided Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) deserves to be taken seriously. He's made seven Sunday show appearances since February; the New York Times recently described Paul has one of his party's "rising stars"; and the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza last week referred to the Kentucky Republican as "the most interesting politician in the country" and "the most interesting man in the (political) world."

And yet, it's difficult to reconcile the media adulation and Rand Paul's occasional crackpot tendencies.

Earlier today, for example, the senator appeared on Glenn Beck's show to discuss, among other things, the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The host suggested the ruling could lead to polygamy: "If you change one variable -- man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman -- you cannot then tell me that you can't logically tell me you can't change the other variable -- one man, three women. Uh, one woman, four men.... If I'm a devout Muslim and I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I'm an American citizen, that I can't have multiple marriages."

For Paul, this seemed perfectly sensible. In fact, the senator went even further than Beck. Here's the entirety of Rand Paul's response, in which the senator said he's "kind of with" the unhinged host.

"I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening -- whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?

"You know, I mean, so there really are, the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation? Historically we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it. Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but I'm kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It's having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we're punting on it, marriage can be anything."


Raise your hand if you think Rand Paul has any idea what he's talking about.

I realize there's a "Stand With Rand" crowd that's convinced the Kentucky Republican is a visionary when it comes to limited government, and I understand that much of the media establishment is eager for us to perceive him as a serious and credible person. But Rand Paul decided to chat with Glenn Beck, and during the interview the senator raised the prospect of marriage-equality proponents asking, "Does it have to be humans?"

If this is what constitutes an "interesting" politician and "rising star" in Republican politics, the GOP is in dire straits, indeed.


There is a contingent of the population that's desperately looking for a prominent political figure in Washington who celebrates civil liberties, is openly uncomfortable with the national security state, and opposes the rush towards more wars, especially in the Middle East.

But we're frequently reminded why Rand Paul probably isn't the champion these folks have been waiting for. He believes bizarre and unsettling conspiracy theories; he's convinced the Obama administration is responsible for problems with his toilet; his concerns about armed drones are strikingly ignorant and contradictory; he considers fringe outlet like World Net Daily to be credible news organizations, and on the morning of a civil-rights breakthrough for LGBT Americans, he hangs out with Glenn Beck and raises the specter of bestiality.

If you've chosen Rand Paul as your freedom-celebrating hero, you've probably picked the wrong guy.
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Post-DOMA, Rand Paul fears humans marrying non-humans (Original Post) babylonsister Jun 2013 OP
Fuck Rand Paul, and his dad. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #1
they are so depraved Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #2
Rand Paul: Dawson Leery Jun 2013 #3
I find your leaves so luxuriosly green and crunchy flamingdem Jun 2013 #4
Fuck Rand Paul. MineralMan Jun 2013 #5
In R. Paul's case, mating with a non-human may increase the IQ in that family gene pool! Oh yeah... Behind the Aegis Jun 2013 #6
That's why I'd like to hear "consenting adults" more often. aquart Jun 2013 #7
Maybe there is something to this.... boston bean Jun 2013 #8
Rand Paul is barking mad. HappyMe Jun 2013 #9
"Oh but he's right about the NSA" bunnies Jun 2013 #10
Fears or secretly fantasizes about? Rex Jun 2013 #11
Ron Paul was 20% sane, 80% crazee. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #12
He's a freak. roamer65 Jun 2013 #13
Watch out, he's running for president and may pick Paula Deen for VP JohnnyLib2 Jun 2013 #14
I wonder if the Pauls have Eddie Snowden's money in a special little pouch. n/t Whisp Jun 2013 #15
Funny how so many Republicans' thoughts go there so quickly. tanyev Jun 2013 #16
Edward Snowden's hero, Rand Paul. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #17
Rand, Rand, Rand ... most of the world doesn't share your sweaty fantasies. 11 Bravo Jun 2013 #18
Maybe he has a point... Keefer Jun 2013 #19
Is this that old "man on turtle" thing again? Hekate Jun 2013 #20
I suspect Rand would be saying the exact same thing if interracial marriage was still an issue. nt Zorra Jun 2013 #21
What part of "consent" do these guys not understand?! Lunacee_2013 Jun 2013 #22

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
2. they are so depraved
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 04:54 PM
Jun 2013

Constantly thinking about marrying other species or cucumbers. How perverted can you get? They think this is a reflection on homosexuals, while all it is is a reflection on their own perversions.

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)
3. Rand Paul:
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 04:54 PM
Jun 2013

OPPOSES use of ARMED DRONES against admitted, armed, and violent terrorists.
SUPPORTS use of ARMED DRONES against convenience store robbery suspects.

Behind the Aegis

(53,833 posts)
6. In R. Paul's case, mating with a non-human may increase the IQ in that family gene pool! Oh yeah...
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 04:56 PM
Jun 2013

FUCK RAND (and RON, too) PAUL!

aquart

(69,014 posts)
7. That's why I'd like to hear "consenting adults" more often.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 04:56 PM
Jun 2013

Just adding that phrase destroys all the idiot arguments.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
8. Maybe there is something to this....
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 04:59 PM
Jun 2013

His wife did marry a jackass and then she gave birth to an even bigger jackass.

And all that happened to prior to the overturning of DOMA.. They would know I guess.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
12. Ron Paul was 20% sane, 80% crazee.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 05:03 PM
Jun 2013

Rand is more concentrated crazy.

The sad part is that both are a caricature of what the actual Libertarian party once stood for, like the 1970s. This worship of Ayn Rand and the crazee Federal Reserve are a Ron Paul and a few of his acolytes creation. I know, one of those fun facts.

Why the belt way media gives him some attention? Though very rarely, lately twice in one year, he was right, but it is the proverbial blind squirrel finding a nut.

I know people cringe and scream Goodwin, but the German establishment also laughed at Hitler. Rand, especially if he is as charismatic as his dad (I covered a Ron Paul Rally for the paper, take my word on this, if not attend a rally) could prove very dangerous.

Nope, not because oh my god he's a Libertarian....RUN!!! Protect women and children!!!! I think under that lovable exterior lies a very dangerous individual, that the powers that be believe they can controlled.

Go ahead Goodwin this

Lunacee_2013

(529 posts)
22. What part of "consent" do these guys not understand?!
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 07:13 PM
Jun 2013

A dog cannot give consent. A car cannot give consent, therefore they cannot marry! As for the multiple marriage thing, while I personally have issues with it, because of the flds scandal, if consenting adults want to engage in it, I can't come up with a reason to stop them.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Post-DOMA, Rand Paul fear...