Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul aide: Beastiality Comment was 'Sarcasm'
upi.com ^ | 6 28 2013

Posted on 06/29/2013 3:40:18 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion

Rand Paul shook off an awkward comment comparing same-sex marriage to beastiality and made a trip Friday to the early primary state South Carolina in the early stages of a potential presidential campaign.

The Kentucky senator, reacting to a comment from Glenn Beck wondering if the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the bulk of the Defense of Marriage Act could lead to legalized polygamy, Paul extended Beck's logic.

"This is a conundrum, and it gets back to what you were saying… whether or not churches should decide this,” Paul said. “And it is difficult, because if we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?”

His office later said the comment was not meant to be taken literally.

(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: barndoorisopen; bestiality; fireandbrimstone; gaystapo; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; pederasty; pedophilia; polygamy; randpaul; randpaul2016; sodomandgomorrah; ssm; zoophilia

1 posted on 06/29/2013 3:40:18 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Never back down from the truth.


2 posted on 06/29/2013 3:41:07 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
That will be right after they legalize polygamy and pedophilia...


3 posted on 06/29/2013 3:44:55 AM PDT by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don’t take it back! Aside from the fake glamorous image and faux nicities, homo’s are a bunch of butt f*ckers & c*ck suckers - that’s the hard truth.


4 posted on 06/29/2013 3:49:19 AM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Why wasn’t he being serious? Is he so ignorant?

The Death Eaters’ house philosopher, Peter Singer, has already said there’s nothing wrong with having sex with animals, as long as the animal doesn’t suffer any visible harm.


5 posted on 06/29/2013 4:25:19 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Peter Singer, has already said there’s nothing wrong with having sex with animals, as long as the animal doesn’t suffer any visible harm.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
He knows that for a fact as the last time he asked his horse if he minded having sex with him, the horse said “NAY”.
The sheep said “Bah” but since he had his waders, he said ‘Why not’ and went ahead anyway.

Don’t they take the animal’s ‘MENTAL HEALTH’ into consideration?

Sure we have some shrinks out there that will claim the animal suffers trauma the same as a rape victim and should be compensated. Of course, then the owner of the animal would demand compensation, thereby laying MORE money in the hands of the lawyers and shrinks....

Follow the bouncing ball.


6 posted on 06/29/2013 4:33:24 AM PDT by xrmusn (6/98 --Inside every 'older' man there is a 'younger' man wondering "WTF happened")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

His comments absurd? No way he was right on target. Recall the woman in CT. who domesticized her pet chimpanzee, she slept with it and dined with it until he savagely attacked her friend. Had this woman had the opportunity to marry the chimp she would have. Prediction, the day will come when some jack ass will file a suit to marry a pet and the liberal courts will allow it.


7 posted on 06/29/2013 4:35:07 AM PDT by kenmcg (scapegoat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn

I predict that one consequence of opening “marriage” to all and sundry will be a proliferation of work for lawyers. For all the handwringing about the wrongs of traditional marriage, every other assemblage produces more breakups, more violence, and more scarmabled property and custody snafus.

One has to wonder about our lawmakers. I know this stuff. I know about Peter Singer. I know that, all over the country, aficionados of every type of deviant sex are lining up to demand normalization of their preferred activity. And I’m just an average suburban housewife who reads.

What doesn’t Rand Paul know this? Or if he does, why is he pretending otherwise?


8 posted on 06/29/2013 4:45:06 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Rand Paul will be pilloried for this. Change him to a certified leftist, and nobody will even mention it.


9 posted on 06/29/2013 5:24:10 AM PDT by I want the USA back (If I Pi$$ed off just one liberal today my mission has been accomplished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Santorum made the same point many years ago to similar false scorn

Rand Paul and others should never apologize
Double down on the point

What are the limits if any on individual choices and who sets them?


10 posted on 06/29/2013 5:37:32 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Ugh... why did he back down? Intellectually, he is on solid ground. If thousands of years of human experience, and our apprehension that the God of this world gave us a moral code to live by, is no longer relevant to government policy on marriage, then there is ZERO reason to prevent a man from marrying his donkey, just as after sodomy was legalized there were no grounds to continue the criminalization of bestiality.

These idiots don’t realize that after they abandon the objective nature of God’s moral law, they only have their subjective viewpoint to fall back on. Any belief that bestiality is somehow ‘wrong’ is merely illusory in light of our acceptance of the queer mafia.

It’s this kind of crap that makes me worry about Rand Paul. Weirdly enough, it was one of his father’s strong suits. He stood his ground time and time again, even if I disagreed with where he stood often.
Rand backing down when just a tiny bit of media pressure mounts is troubling.


11 posted on 06/29/2013 6:23:18 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

“Rand Paul shook off an awkward comment comparing same-sex marriage to beastiality”

Liberals always use the word “Compare” when you point out the logical extension of their policies.

Rand did not COMPARE Homosexuality to Beastiality, That would imply that he pointed out their differences or similarities. That is “Comparing”.

What he did was show a progression from one to other.

Kind of like when a Liberal argues against the 2nd amendment and says “Well, should people be able to own nukes?”

People need to stop letting the MSM frame the debate or put quotes into their own context.


12 posted on 06/29/2013 7:22:07 AM PDT by CrappieLuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
I now pronounce you man and man. You may kiss your gerbil.

We have gone against morality and scientific biology. This is utter collapse.

Israeli man marries donkey to protest gay rights parade.

13 posted on 06/29/2013 8:12:37 AM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson