Skip to comments.Rand Paul aide: Beastiality Comment was 'Sarcasm'
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 ...
Never back down from the truth.
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.
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.
Peter Singer, has already said theres nothing wrong with having sex with animals, as long as the animal doesnt 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.
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.
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?
Rand Paul will be pilloried for this. Change him to a certified leftist, and nobody will even mention it.
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?
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.
“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.
We have gone against morality and scientific biology. This is utter collapse.
Note: this topic is from 06/29/2013.
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]