Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

There are 5436 comments on the www.wisconsingazette.com story from Oct 9, 2012, titled Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality. In it, www.wisconsingazette.com reports that:

In a recent interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, Paul Ryan reassured the anti-gay hate group that a Romney-Ryan administration will fiercely oppose gay rights.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.wisconsingazette.com.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#5542 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
from YOUR last post:
"Of course, most marriage also contain love, commitment, etc. "
say lides, why do we even try to ferret out sham marriages, then?
AFAIK, only in the case of immigration, and that's so people won't use marriage as a way to help people get US citizenship, or visas, or whatever.
Jane Dough wrote:
so marriage to you is a one day short term contract for insurance benefits?
then whats all this whining about love and all the kids you gays have?
You don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry. No amount of twisting and turning will change that simple fact.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#5543 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
back to pete and repeat?
Okay, here:
" for the welfare of children,
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
Jane, the issue is gay marriage, not gay couples raising children.(I've heard they do a fine job.)
Jane Dough wrote:
it
is more important to promote stability, and
to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships.
You don't have to pick one or the other.
You are acting like only so many marriage licenses can be printed.
Jane Dough wrote:
Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to
the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of
science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a
sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that
this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships
are all too often casual or temporary. It
could find that an important function of
marriage is to create more stability and
permanence in the relationships that cause
children to be born...
But, stupid, people marry for all kinds of reasons. People who can't reproduce marry.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#5547 Dec 13, 2012
sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
He and his wife are hideous to me. That youngest girl ain't looking very cute anymore either.
No one ever refutes the gay accusations against Obama. He looks hetero now, unlike you, Ho.
Fixated on the idea of Obama having gay sex?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#5548 Dec 13, 2012
sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you set a date yet for you and your horse?
He's just hung like one.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#5549 Dec 13, 2012
sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have 2 mommies[picture Ralphie from the Simpsons]
whap, bam, boom
You approve of violence for such things. Typical con dumb.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5550 Dec 14, 2012
This is entertaining in a frustrating way.

I see Jane accusing lides of repeating the same things when Jane does the same thing...

Then I see lides repond to Janes arguments... but Jane will quote one line that is the least important line in the response and call lides stupid.

Then lides will try to sum up what was said to get jane to respond... then Jane says "pete and repeat sat on a fence"

and then we move on... lol

Its funny but sad.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#5551 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Tell us again how there is a legitimate state interest
tell us AGAIN?

You are even failing at pete and repeat now...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#5552 Dec 14, 2012
EmpAtheist wrote:
This is entertaining in a frustrating way.
I see Jane accusing lides of repeating the same things when Jane does the same thing...
Then I see lides repond to Janes arguments... but Jane will quote one line that is the least important line in the response and call lides stupid.
Then lides will try to sum up what was said to get jane to respond... then Jane says "pete and repeat sat on a fence"
and then we move on... lol
Its funny but sad.
lides insist the sky is green and you are fine accepting that...I am not and call him stupid for insisting it...

you do get that lodes pretends I never offered any reasons, but just asked me to give them AGAIN, right?

Thats the pete and repeat game...

He refuses to address the reasons I have provided and instead talks about the case I found them in...
he believes his disagreement with my reasons negates their existence...and apparently so do you...

if you want to stop the game, how about you have him address the reasons themselves in more than a justice dumass way?

I am bored of the circle too, I could use help getting out of the pete and repeat game...
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#5553 Dec 14, 2012
A political party in search of a brain ...
http://godlessliberals.com/Pix/the-origin-of-...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5554 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
this from the guy who hates that I cut and paste court decisions that say what I am arguing and provides NOTHING but what he feels...
Jane, it is not my opinion that the decision you ineptly cite has been superseded by legislation, that is fact.

Similarly it is fact that the speculation, in said decision, by the court did not com to fruition, although marriage equality did.
Jane Dough wrote:
So I challenge you to identify one lie after calling me a liar and YOU CANNOT...
funny.
So your apology will be forthcoming, right?
I’m not taking the bait. This is, yet another, off topic attempt to obfuscate.

Perhaps you could indicate a single legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render your argument constitutional?

EmpAtheist, I find Jane's delightful inability to articulate a valid argument to be hysterical.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5555 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
lides insist the sky is green and you are fine accepting that...I am not and call him stupid for insisting it...
How so? What would be the equivalent to him calling the sky green? what is his claim?
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>you do get that lodes pretends I never offered any reasons, but just asked me to give them AGAIN, right?
Thats the pete and repeat game...
He refuses to address the reasons I have provided and instead talks about the case I found them in...
he believes his disagreement with my reasons negates their existence...and apparently so do you...
if you want to stop the game, how about you have him address the reasons themselves in more than a justice dumass way?
I am bored of the circle too, I could use help getting out of the pete and repeat game...
Lides did dodge then because lides claimed they were "hypothetical, baseless, and irrelevant"
and I agree...

Allow me to try and break the circle...I will go through them them...(I may have to break this up. I don't know the limit I can post)
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>"First, the Legislature could rationally
decide that, for the welfare of children, it
is more important to promote stability, and
to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to
the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of
science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a
sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that
this will continue to be true.
Lides DID mention along with others on here that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>The Legislature could also find that such relationships
are all too often casual or temporary. It
could find that an important function of
marriage is to create more stability and
permanence in the relationships that cause
children to be born. It thus could choose
to offer an inducement—in the form of
marriage and its attendant benefits—to
opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,
long-term commitment to each other.
They COULD find that except that its not true at the moment. Currently because gays have had to struggle to get married, they have had stronger commitments... This is too fresh though.. after a few decades of it being legal you may be right... but even then.. it's irrelevant. Also, even if having children does bring stability... stability is also not a requirement or even anyones interest for legal marriage.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5556 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more. This is one reason
why the Legislature could rationally offer
the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex
couples only.
This is mostly a regurgitation of everything already said but directed more to the well-being of the children. Still about stability which I addressed above.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a
father. Intuition and experience suggest
that a child benefits from having before his
or her eyes, every day, living models of
what both a man and a woman are like. It
is obvious that there are exceptions to this
general rule—some children who never
know their fathers, or their S360mothers, do
far better than some who grow up with
parents of both sexes—but the Legislature
could find that the general rule will usually
hold."
You addressed the exceptions already and mentioned no reasons that this "general rule" holds true. More importantly... it is also irrelevant.

Marriage used to be a father passing his daughter to a man to marry. At that time the woman was a possesion owned by the man and occasionally was SOLD to another man and gave up his ownership through divorce. Since then it has evolved into an emotional relationship between two people. This provides them with basic rights for health care, inheritance rights, hospital visits, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. The religious ceremony doesn't and shouldn't matter along with what the religion believes about marriage.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#5558 Dec 14, 2012
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>

Lides DID mention along with others on here that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage
and the standing scotus caselaw addresses this precisely:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

nothing is a requirement of marriage, not love, not commitment, nothing...
are you saying marriage has no connection to these things as well?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5559 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
and the standing scotus caselaw addresses this precisely:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
nothing is a requirement of marriage, not love, not commitment, nothing...
are you saying marriage has no connection to these things as well?
Can you defend this decision, Jane? Because the reality is that impotence in a heterosexual is in no way theoretical, they are no more able to conceive than a same sex couple.

Once again you are relying upon a case decided at a time when homosexuality was still medically classified as a mental disorder. What is more, you keep speaking of Baker as binding precedent, in spite of the fact that numerous federal courts and appellate courts have chosen not to apply it, and none of those decisions has been overturned.

The reality is that merely citing that Baker exists, and became precedent procedurally when it was dismissed by the US Supreme Court "for want of a substantial federal question", is a far cry from offering a rational argument in defense of the decision.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#5560 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Once again you are relying upon a case
wow, you address the case and not the reason?
I must be psychic....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5561 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
wow, you address the case and not the reason?
I must be psychic....
Jane, i have addressed the case, time and time again. It pplies the fallacious logic that hererosexual infertility is no more than a theoretical imperfection. The reality is this, an infertile couple will not be able to have children, period, end of story.

However, even that is irrelevant, because there is neither a prerequisite of procreative ability to obtain marriage, nor is their a requirement of procreation if one legally marries.

Your procreative argument have all been debunked, and it is utterly irrational to imply that there is a legitimate state interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage, applicable only to homosexuals, and solely to exclude them from equal protection.

Your inability to offer a rational defense of Baker is exactly why the decision will be overturned in the near future. It was an inept decision that came to be Supreme Court precedent through procedure.

I'm continually astounded that you wish to hang your whole argument on that one weak decision, which you apparently lack the ability to rationally defend.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#5562 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, i have addressed the case, time and time again..
I know...
look at the post, I am saying forget the case and address the reasons themselves and not with any dumbass proclamation...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5563 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I know...
look at the post, I am saying forget the case and address the reasons themselves and not with any dumbass proclamation...
Jane, we've done this both ways. I have addressed the case AND the reason, and you have not offered a single rational defense of the case. The reality, which even a child could see, is that there is no procreative prerequisite for or requirement of legal marriage.

Let's face it, Jane.

You're tap dancing because you can't rationally defend your position. This is why gay marriage opponents have been losing in court, and why they will continue to do so.
cunune

Pittsburgh, PA

#5564 Dec 14, 2012
youtube.com/watch... our Goverment at Work
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#5565 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I have addressed the case AND the reason, and you have not offered a single rational defense of the case. The reality, which even a child could see, is that there is no procreative prerequisite for or requirement of legal marriage.
Let's face it, Jane.
You're tap dancing because you can't rationally defend your position. This is why gay marriage opponents have been losing in court, and why they will continue to do so.
You addressed the reasons with some dumbass proclamation..do you think they are arguments?
The proclamations usually don not address the issues correctly let alone contradict my argument...
like dismissing them as RATIONALIZATIONS...
that's the real good stuff lides...
like I always say, you use your ignorance as a sword...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ireland gay marriage: Northern Ireland must now... 5 min Scandinavian uber... 2
News 5 things to know about Ireland's gay marriage r... 7 min jason norris 37
News Obama to 5-Year-Old Gay Marriage Advocate: 'Cou... 16 min nhjeff 39
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 29 min tongangodz 3,764
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 31 min Wondering 4,502
News Church reels after Ireland's huge 'Yes' to gay ... 38 min Fa-Foxy 17
News Ireland same-sex marriage 42 min Fa-Foxy 119
More from around the web