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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Rand Paul: "Humans Will Marry Non Humans Without DOMA" [View all]
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) on Wednesday worried the defeat of the Defense of Marriage Act could lead to the legalization of human-animal marriages.
I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening whether or not churches should decide this, Paul said on Glenn Becks radio show Wednesday morning. 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, the Kentucky Republican continued. Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but Im 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? Its having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh were punting on it, marriage can be anything.
Paul had previously said he opposed DOMA, a federal law that prohibited same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and protections. However, he only opposed the law because it potentially gave the Supreme Court an opening to legalize same-sex marriages nationwide.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/rand-paul-same-sex-marriage-conundrum-leads-to-marrying-animals/
I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening whether or not churches should decide this, Paul said on Glenn Becks radio show Wednesday morning. 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, the Kentucky Republican continued. Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but Im 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? Its having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh were punting on it, marriage can be anything.
Paul had previously said he opposed DOMA, a federal law that prohibited same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and protections. However, he only opposed the law because it potentially gave the Supreme Court an opening to legalize same-sex marriages nationwide.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/rand-paul-same-sex-marriage-conundrum-leads-to-marrying-animals/
Once again proving he is the biggest dumbass in the Senate.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
203 replies, 26234 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (27)
ReplyReply to this post
203 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Well, it held them hide the fact that they don't have an actual argument against gay marriage
Fortinbras Armstrong
Jun 2013
#189
The bride/groom might have a problem with the "I do" part unless it's a parrot.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#6
The mind boggles at the thought of wedding gifts. Scratching post? Doggie bowl?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#7
In fairness, an 18-year-old cat would be pretty damn old. Eligible for Kitty Social Security.
nomorenomore08
Jun 2013
#199
fine, troglodytes are marrying human females and producing republicans
Nanjing to Seoul
Jun 2013
#143
Given that he's a RW libertarian douchebag, I wouldn't be surprised if Snowden was anti-gay.
baldguy
Jun 2013
#34
Love the fact that you have no clue about Snowdens objectives, but still support him anyway.
baldguy
Jun 2013
#41
"... substantial risk to his own life..." So, Obama is activly trying to get him assasinated?
baldguy
Jun 2013
#79
"...someones intent of doing an action is different than their facial features or looks"
wtmusic
Jun 2013
#188
I get it now. Whether or not I think our national security state is a good idea--
eridani
Jun 2013
#167
Too late! Sister Sarah has already married and replicated several drone clones.
Major Hogwash
Jun 2013
#33
Does this mean we can legally start combining various animal DNA with human DNA,
kentauros
Jun 2013
#51
You know what the leading cause of poverty is in this country, elitist selfish bastards like Rand
Johonny
Jun 2013
#53
Great!,now I just need to find a Vulcan,or an Elf to marry and I'll be happy.
athenasatanjesus
Jun 2013
#57
If this is all that prickwit has as argument against Teh Gay, I ain't worried.
Kurovski
Jun 2013
#72
but according to you and your dad's ideology, they should be free to do whatever they want
SemperEadem
Jun 2013
#76
As a Pennsylvanian, I'm proud he's taking up Sen. Man-on-Dog Santorum's cause.
Demoiselle
Jun 2013
#78
rand paul may call himself a libertarian, but he is not. He is just another repuke bigot
still_one
Jun 2013
#83
Yeah, because law is the only thing that's been stopping humans from marrying nonhumans.
winter is coming
Jun 2013
#100
This just goes to show that Rand Paul is a fraud. He claims to be a libertarian.
totodeinhere
Jun 2013
#107
They already see half the human race in that group, so I'd say they misunderstood a lot.
freshwest
Jun 2013
#193
Marriage with a Non-Human has already happened many times in the past. Look at the Romneys.
Arugula Latte
Jun 2013
#133
Paulbots piss me off. Especially DU Paulbots. They support shit like this
Nanjing to Seoul
Jun 2013
#142
Go to any Paul discussion. I am in no mood to go through DU thread by thread
Nanjing to Seoul
Jun 2013
#147
No, you threw the accusation. Name names. I'm not doing your work for you. n/t
backscatter712
Jun 2013
#148
Again, I have a life and a wife that loves me and wants to spend time with me.
Nanjing to Seoul
Jun 2013
#149
While it is true that general public perception of Paul support does not differentiate issues, so
patrice
Jun 2013
#151
So he represents a state full of jackasses who allow animals to sign contracts?
eridani
Jun 2013
#164