Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

Oct 9, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.wisconsingazette.com

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.

Comments (Page 248)

Showing posts 4,941 - 4,960 of5,438
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5539
Dec 13, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you are boring and dumb...
just another day...
I wonder what you will say when the scotus rules as I have said they will...
and that procreation is addressed...
I know, you will call them bigots and say we need to stock the court with idiots like you...
What's to address? You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. It's just not an issue. A woman can go through menopause, have a hysterectomy and still marry.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5540
Dec 13, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me pose a hypothetical to you...
Two friends decide they will marry for a day, get insurance, have an operation one needs and then immediately divorce...
they apply for a marriage license, do they get one?
Don't know if they can. But let's say they can get all those benefits with a one day marriage and divorce. What's your point?
Jane Dough wrote:
But is that that what a marriage is to you?
No love, no commitment, no nothing but a business deal, yet they get a marriage license...
And?
Jane Dough wrote:
so marriage must not be about love, commitment, or anything but a pure short-term business deal.
And?
If you think all marriages are about hearts and flowers, you are stupid. I was going to say "naive", but "stupid" is more fitting.
Jane Dough wrote:
This is why your "required" logic isn't one...
ALL of what we expect a marriage to have is NOT REQUIRED...
You shoot down your own argument. A couple is not legally required to love each other in order to marry, just like a couple does't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5541
Dec 13, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. of course, most marriages contain procreation though...
So what?
Probably in most marriages, the man is taller than the woman. But that's not a legal requirement.
Jane Dough wrote:
And like we root out sham marriages for the sake of immigration, we choose where we draw the line...
and 100% non- commited marriages like sham marriages for citizenship and 100% infertile marriages like gays is where we rationally draw the line...
But you aren't required to be able to reproduce in order to marry. It's that simple.
Jane Dough wrote:
THE best part is you think calling my hypo stupid was addressing it...
So, we EXPECT many things to be in a marriage even though they are not REQUIRED?
Imagine that...
so that they are not required means NOTHING, huh?
Actually, it means EVERYTHING.
What you may expect, and what I may expect may be different. But our expectations are not the same as legal requirements.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5550
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5551
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5552
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5553
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

A political party in search of a brain ...
http://godlessliberals.com/Pix/the-origin-of-...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5555
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5556
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,941 - 4,960 of5,438
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••