Rand Paul Thinks Gay Marriage Is Hard To Understand

“I believe in traditional marriage,” Paul told Fischer. “I really don’t understand any other kind of marriage. Between a man and a woman is what I believe in. I just don’t think it's good for us to change the definition of that.” Video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/rand-paul-gay-marriage-understand-doma_n_2592054.html?ref=topbar



• What is there to understand? The same way he loves his wife is the same way gay people feel about their partners.

• We shouldn't change it because he's too stupid to understand the change???

• [quote]"I just don’t think it's good for us to change the definition of that.” There is nothing to get or not get. Plus, no one gives a shit what you think or whether you "understand" something or not. It is not about you, you stupid fucking douchebag.

• That's OK, Rand, no one understand why you're still breathing but we'll let you live anyway.

• I'm old enough to remember when congressmen were saying women should chair committees because the word chairwoman was awkward. If they're too stupid to learn how to say a new word, then yes, they're too stupid to understand something like a relationship. I'm sure every last one of them has a wife who's cheating out of sheer desperation.

• Should not chair committees, obviously.

• Rand Paul is hard to understand

• He's just using "understand" to replace "approve of." He thinks it makes his religious beliefs seem objective. It doesn't

• I thought Libertarian types didn't believe the government should be involved in private issues, or what conservatives would call "moral issues."

• The don't. Rand isn't a real libertarian. He's a "freedom for me to impose my views upon you" hypocrite. His brand of Christianity is incompatible with libertarianism.

• I honest-to-God don't understand why anyone would want to voluntarily spend his or her life around a child, but that doesn't mean I think I have the right to keep them from doing so.

• I hope you don't literally mean that you don't understand why someone would want to be a parent or a teacher. Otherwise, I'd call you an idiot. It isn't hard to figure out. I think you mean you don't share the values they have that make them want to be around children. Like Paul, maybe you are trying to turn a personal belief or preference into something more objectively true. (Those people are all completely crazy. I'm perfectly rational.) Or maybe you just lack an imagination and empathy.

• Rand Paul is rather dim. There are LOTS of things he finds hard to understand. Like basic economics and macro-economics. Civil rights. Or what not to say in public.

• I though Rand Paul worshiped Ayn Rand as his lord and personal savior.

• Rand Paul is not a libertarian. Not sur about him worshipping ayn rand- think that's Paul Ryan. Can't imagine I would get too much support here saying a good word about Rand' s old man, Ron, but I will say he inspired a movement that is pretty inclusive and liberal an Rand has worked hard to convince conservatives, especially in Kentucky, that he is not some crazy social liberal like his old man.

• I don't understand it either. Other people can do as they please, but there is no way that I will ever emulate the heterosexuals of the world with some sort of pretend "marriage". People talk against DOMA and criticize Clinton for signing it, but when Clinton was running for office, all the "gay" leaders were saying just as I still do, that we would never want to try to pattern our lives after the heterosexuals. Where Clinton betrayed people was the DADT rather than simply signing an executive order to end discrimination in the military.

• So what you're saying, R16, is that you're just as much an idiot as Paul Rand, correct? Props to you for admitting it!

• What does "props to you" mean? I assume that you know that if two people earn a good living and file a joint tax return, then their income tax is very much higher than if each filed as "single". They are calling it a "marriage penalty", but it is really a credit for a woman to stay home and take care of the couple's children, and a disincentive for both to work. I'm not a woman, and I am not going to marry one, and neither am I going to "pretend" marry another man, and I am certainly not going to pay for a male housewife to stay home. I'm not about to ever file a "married" income tax return and pay the government so much for the privilege of pretending that me and another man are "married".