Rand Paul says that humans will marry non humans without DOM

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
Raggedyann
Pirate
Posts: 5250
Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM

Rand Paul says that humans will marry non humans without DOM

Post by Raggedyann » 06-27-2013 02:07 PM

Sen. Rand Paul says that the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act will lead to humans marrying nonhumans. "If we have no laws on this, people take it … one extension further," the Kentucky Republican told Glenn Beck Wednesday. "Does it have to be humans?" (He didn't specify whether he meant animals, robots or appliances, but we'd still like to see those wedding registries.) He also said he believed that the court's decision will put children at risk if they're born to unmarried parents. Paul's spokesperson later clarified his comments. "What he was discussing was that having the state recognize marriage without definition could lead to marriages with no basis in reality," Moira Bagley said.

http://now.msn.com/rand-paul-says-witho ... -nonhumans

Oh, this clears it up.

"What he was discussing was that having the state recognize marriage without definition could lead to marriages with no basis in reality," Moira Bagley said.

I've never met anybody in my entire life or even heard of anybody in my entire life, that expressed a desire to marry an animal. :dali:
Last edited by Raggedyann on 06-27-2013 02:16 PM, edited 1 time in total.
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.” Simon Wiesenthal

User avatar
Doka
Pirate
Posts: 7967
Joined: 09-02-2009 08:15 PM

Post by Doka » 06-27-2013 02:26 PM

I'm sure they are out there. I remember a commercial for one of the fast food places, this guy wanted to marry a hamburger. Actually getting hitched to a cat doesn't sound that bad , especially if it has a good income. :coolhat:
KARMA RULES

Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities': Voltaire

User avatar
Fan
Lady with a
Posts: 5307
Joined: 05-09-2011 02:18 PM
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul says that humans will marry non humans without

Post by Fan » 06-27-2013 04:24 PM

Raggedyann wrote: Sen. Rand Paul says that the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act will lead to humans marrying nonhumans. "If we have no laws on this, people take it … one extension further," the Kentucky Republican told Glenn Beck Wednesday. "Does it have to be humans?" (He didn't specify whether he meant animals, robots or appliances, but we'd still like to see those wedding registries.) He also said he believed that the court's decision will put children at risk if they're born to unmarried parents. Paul's spokesperson later clarified his comments. "What he was discussing was that having the state recognize marriage without definition could lead to marriages with no basis in reality," Moira Bagley said.

http://now.msn.com/rand-paul-says-witho ... -nonhumans

Oh, this clears it up.

"What he was discussing was that having the state recognize marriage without definition could lead to marriages with no basis in reality," Moira Bagley said.

I've never met anybody in my entire life or even heard of anybody in my entire life, that expressed a desire to marry an animal. :dali:


...and you know what, I wouldn't care either way. Get out of people's personal lives government. You DO NOT know best.
The heartbreaking necessity of lying about reality and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it.

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

User avatar
Raggedyann
Pirate
Posts: 5250
Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM

Re: Re: Rand Paul says that humans will marry non humans wit

Post by Raggedyann » 06-27-2013 04:36 PM

Fan wrote: ...and you know what, I wouldn't care either way. Get out of people's personal lives government. You DO NOT know best.

Unfortunately, Paul's notions represent the notions of part of the populace that also thinks he knows best.
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.” Simon Wiesenthal

User avatar
Fan
Lady with a
Posts: 5307
Joined: 05-09-2011 02:18 PM
Contact:

Re: Re: Re: Rand Paul says that humans will marry non humans

Post by Fan » 06-27-2013 04:40 PM

Raggedyann wrote: Unfortunately, Paul's notions represent the notions of part of the populace that also thinks he knows best.
oh well, too bad for them, they'll have to live in sin with their goat wives for now.
The heartbreaking necessity of lying about reality and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it.

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

User avatar
Raggedyann
Pirate
Posts: 5250
Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM

Post by Raggedyann » 06-27-2013 04:51 PM

These comments are disgusting on several levels, but the one part that is particularly disgusting, is that Paul does not really believe his own notions. But he knows there are back woods people out there who'll buy into this in a heartbeat. The fact that he spewed this nonsense on Glenn Beck's show proves it.

Funny thing is, these are the very people who would marry their common law goat. :D
Last edited by Raggedyann on 06-27-2013 05:12 PM, edited 1 time in total.
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.” Simon Wiesenthal

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 15706
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: Heartland USA
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 06-27-2013 07:08 PM


User avatar
voguy
Pirate
Posts: 4175
Joined: 06-01-2011 05:47 PM
Location: Moving Target (soon SA)

Post by voguy » 06-27-2013 08:54 PM

From a legal standpoint, Rand does have some basis for an argument. From a VoGuy standpoint, I could care less what people do. It shouldn't be the decision of the government, and they should stay the hell out of people's lives. But being the guy that often stirs the pot, here is something to bring to this conversation.

I do have a problem in the method in which this all went down. It's my understanding from the briefs filed in the case, as well as my own gay friends explaining the issue of cohabitation, that much of this has to do with the ability of one gay spouse to pass assets to another under the same conditions as a woman would receive the estate and assets of her deceased husband. The gay side does have a legitimate argument in this matter as many couples do not, under all jurisdictions, have the right of inheritance. So, what is the problem with giving them this right. I don't see what is so damn hard for the government to understand that gay couples should be entitled to the same rights as married heterosexual couples. In fact, I think there is a case for bias.

However, many of the gay organizations have pushed this notion that it's about the definition and term "marriage". To me, this is flying in the face of those opposed to the lifestyle a notion that marriage must change. That, at least to me, is antagonistic toward the end of trying to get the equality which could be fought on other grounds. in other words, I think they could win equality towards being on the same level as a man and a woman in a marriage if they would quit rubbing the other sides nose in it. How many of you remember the lesson of the story of "Stone Soup"?

But here is the legal side I worry about. Much of law is argued based upon past cases. When you have a precedent which has been ruled in favor by a high court, then arguing something similar could be easy and given the circumstances passed under less than common sense reasons. So Rand may not be too far off, especially in areas of our country where the values and culture may not be what we are used to. Which brings me to what one law professor brought up in his commentary which was shadowed by Rand's comment. In fact, his comment had me somewhat ill thinking about it. Could we see the consenting age of minors reduced? Could there be legislation in our future making it legal for a minor and an adult to cohabitat based on a convoluted argument on this recent case? I hope not, but lets face it. A law need be only passed by a group of politicians, influenced by an active group, who argue the passage based on a previous ruling and the fact that ten years ago it was not popular but it is now.

This is what scares the crap out of me. We may have opened the door on something we really don't want.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 15706
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: Heartland USA
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 06-27-2013 09:15 PM

voguy wrote: Could we see the consenting age of minors reduced? Could there be legislation in our future making it legal for a minor and an adult to cohabitat based on a convoluted argument on this recent case?
...
We may have opened the door on something we really don't want.
UK Guardian, January 2013:
Study says pedophilia ‘normal’ may be good for children

UK Guardian, January 2023:
Study says zoophilia ‘normal’ may be good for animals

UK Guardian, January 2033:
Study says necrophilia 'normal' may be good for corpses

User avatar
Raggedyann
Pirate
Posts: 5250
Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM

Post by Raggedyann » 06-28-2013 12:02 AM

If people don't "rub their noses in it" to bring about change, there would never be change.

Pedophilia and bestiality? Red herrings.
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.” Simon Wiesenthal

Lore
Pirate
Posts: 236
Joined: 10-15-2009 07:35 PM

Re: Rand Paul says that humans will marry non humans without

Post by Lore » 06-28-2013 01:23 AM

I've never met anybody in my entire life or even heard of anybody in my entire life, that expressed a desire to marry an animal. :dali:


Apparently this is already happening and not just with animals.

LINK

ANOTHER LINK

I am sure there are more articles about marrying something other than humans if anyone wants to look for them.

User avatar
Raggedyann
Pirate
Posts: 5250
Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM

Post by Raggedyann » 06-28-2013 03:39 AM

I don't know why people (or animals) want to get married anyway. But that's just me. Not sure about the U.S. but in Canada if folks cohabit under the same roof for a year, they have all the same marital rights as those who opted for the ceremony. That goes for men with men and women with women. The law isn't too clear about animals though. ;)
Last edited by Raggedyann on 06-28-2013 03:50 AM, edited 1 time in total.
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.” Simon Wiesenthal

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 06-28-2013 09:18 AM

YES, the majority of people object to the term "marriage" being compromised from its origin of man to woman. They also believe that the unions, partnerships or male to male, female to female - should have legal rights. Such legal rights as inheritance, taxes, insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc.

The gov't should be kept out of the "marriage" bit - but with this administration - the Bill of Rights has been violated in many other ways.

What will happen next is anyone's guess. Yes next we will hear of other demands. Not just oh marriage to animals or objects, but multiple people, etc.

who knows?

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 06-28-2013 10:50 AM

voguy wrote: From a legal standpoint, Rand does have some basis for an argument. From a VoGuy standpoint, I could care less what people do. It shouldn't be the decision of the government, and they should stay the hell out of people's lives. But being the guy that often stirs the pot, here is something to bring to this conversation.

I do have a problem in the method in which this all went down. It's my understanding from the briefs filed in the case, as well as my own gay friends explaining the issue of cohabitation, that much of this has to do with the ability of one gay spouse to pass assets to another under the same conditions as a woman would receive the estate and assets of her deceased husband. The gay side does have a legitimate argument in this matter as many couples do not, under all jurisdictions, have the right of inheritance. So, what is the problem with giving them this right. I don't see what is so damn hard for the government to understand that gay couples should be entitled to the same rights as married heterosexual couples. In fact, I think there is a case for bias.

However, many of the gay organizations have pushed this notion that it's about the definition and term "marriage". To me, this is flying in the face of those opposed to the lifestyle a notion that marriage must change. That, at least to me, is antagonistic toward the end of trying to get the equality which could be fought on other grounds. in other words, I think they could win equality towards being on the same level as a man and a woman in a marriage if they would quit rubbing the other sides nose in it. How many of you remember the lesson of the story of "Stone Soup"?

But here is the legal side I worry about. Much of law is argued based upon past cases. When you have a precedent which has been ruled in favor by a high court, then arguing something similar could be easy and given the circumstances passed under less than common sense reasons. So Rand may not be too far off, especially in areas of our country where the values and culture may not be what we are used to. Which brings me to what one law professor brought up in his commentary which was shadowed by Rand's comment. In fact, his comment had me somewhat ill thinking about it. Could we see the consenting age of minors reduced? Could there be legislation in our future making it legal for a minor and an adult to cohabitat based on a convoluted argument on this recent case? I hope not, but lets face it. A law need be only passed by a group of politicians, influenced by an active group, who argue the passage based on a previous ruling and the fact that ten years ago it was not popular but it is now.

This is what scares the crap out of me. We may have opened the door on something we really don't want.


I've seen this at work in hospitals where a gay partner was prohibited from doing many of those things traditional married couples take for granted from signing papers to even visiting or getting information about their partner who was hospitalized. On the one hand, this is long overdue, and although the lifestyle isn't for me, personally, I could care less - level the playing field and keep government out of the personal aspects of one's life.


That being said, when I was in the Air Force, I was stationed with a guy from West Texas, who was into rodeos and all that stuff who had a thing for sheep. So....... I can see where Rand Paul is going with this. Yes, they are out there.......:eek: :eek:

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 15706
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: Heartland USA
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 06-28-2013 11:42 AM

Raggedyann wrote: If people don't "rub their noses in it" to bring about change, there would never be change.
Well, there ya go. Society is too repressive, not only in relationships between people, but between individuals and their own bodies. Americans need a more relaxed and less fearful atmosphere to simply be themselves - as it is, in an age of ever-more enlightened thinking, laws requiring attire are antiquated and should be repealed -

Really, what's more natural than being in the all-together? Clearly, a public display in the pursuit of one's God given right to swim naked is no vice.

"Be the change that you want to see in the world," as Minneapolis Man would say.
Raggedyann wrote: Pedophilia and bestiality? Red herrings.
Quite so. After Nudists, the Necrophiliacs are next in line for normalization...

Rubbing noses in it is a tough job but, hey, somebody's gotta do it.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2010-2013”