Paul Ryan promises hate group that he...

Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

There are 5439 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.

Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5571 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, it is not a rationalization.
There is no procreative requirement relative to the legal protections of marriage.
That's not a rationalization, it's a fact.
I notice that you don't actually offer ANY argument in defense of your position... Again. What's that matter, Jane? Have all of your rationalizations been thoroughly debunked?
Jane is incapable of saying he is wrong. Don't expect it from him. He will ALWAYS change the subject, and then yell at you for red herrings. He's quite the dullard.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5572 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Jane is incapable of saying he is wrong. Don't expect it from him. He will ALWAYS change the subject, and then yell at you for red herrings. He's quite the dullard.
Actually, she is. She finally did concede that infertile heterosexual couples are able to marry, despite their inability to procreate. However, she seems utterly incapable of making the leap of logic to understand that condition illustrates that the state does not have a legitimate interest in procreation relative to marriage.

Although there is a lot of talk strew about about Jane being a lawyer, I don't see it. Jane lacks the competence to offer a defense against a traffic ticket.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5573 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, it is not a rationalization.
T
you Do get that you've called them that for weeks right?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5574 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>I don't either, phony ass.
yes you do.
and you bully.

You are actually a total fraud.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5575 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't use the "judge it" icons under ANY name.
Go ahead an tell us how you are going to prove it was me.
I'm not going to, I am just going to point out each time the board lights up with them and leave it to others to see when you arrive...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5576 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane is incapable of saying he is wrong. Don't expect it from him. He will ALWAYS change the subject, and then yell at you for red herrings. He's quite the dullard.
this sounds NOTHING like you..
consistency is not your virtue..
An BTW, I have admitted mistakes many times here...
The fact that you are ignorant and wrong is not a reflection on me as much as you want it to be...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5577 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Although there is a lot of talk strew about about Jane being a lawyer,.
yah, everyday...BY MONA!
and now by you...

if you don't want it brought up, why don't both of you STOP BRINGING IT UP?

I confided that in both of you just to tell you how well you bullying attempts were being received by me...
the facts of reality really help deflect your BS attacks...
funny you both DON'T realize this...
even now.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5578 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
you Do get that you've called them that for weeks right?
Well, you've been offering inept rationalizations for weeks. What else what I supposed to call them? Would you prefer BS? How about pseudo-logic? Any of the above would be equally applicable.

Can you offer a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would a) render such a restriction constitutional, and b) render your argument valid?

I don't think you can. In fact, I know you cannot. You've already tacitly admitted as much when you ceased even attempting to offer such an interest.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5579 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>I don't either, phony ass.
and when you say "either" you are admitting you know I don't lie...
(talk about a slip)

guess what that makes you....
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5580 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

I notice that you don't actually offer ANY argument in defense of your position...
WOow, pete and repeat...
from lides?

no way!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5581 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
WOow, pete and repeat...
from lides?
no way!
Have you come up with the legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry yet?

I didn't think so.
Ray

Newport, OR

#5582 Dec 14, 2012
Homosexuality is immoral and an affront on society. Forcing people to accept "gay marriage" is like forcing people to accept funding for abortions.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5583 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you come up with the legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry yet?
Yup, two in fact.

But they fell off the fence, who is left?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5584 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
She finally did concede that infertile heterosexual couples are able to marry
What a revelation! I think crayons may be a little advanced for you. If you want to deal in facts you should refer to Jane as a man, because he is. You should refer to yourself as Justice Dumbass because you are.

If a man and a woman allpied for a marriage license how would the clerk know they were infertile?

If a same sex couple applied for a marriage license the clerk would know they are an infertile couple.

Do you know where children come from? Hint, it isn't the stork.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5585 Dec 14, 2012
How does someone FORCE you to accept anything? All you have to do is comply with the law; nobody cares if you don't like it.
Ray wrote:
Homosexuality is immoral and an affront on society. Forcing people to accept "gay marriage" is like forcing people to accept funding for abortions.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5586 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Yup, two in fact.
But they fell off the fence, who is left?
Jane, the state interest you assert support your position have been utterly dismantled logically. They don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Feel free to make a case for them, I don't think you can.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5587 Dec 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
How does someone FORCE you to accept anything? <quoted text>
You're right. No one can. It's all the 'in your face' attempts that are annoying.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#5588 Dec 14, 2012
Ray wrote:
Homosexuality is immoral and an affront on society. Forcing people to accept "gay marriage" is like forcing people to accept funding for abortions.
An AFFRONT on society?
Election results reflect the mood of society thus considering nov. election results. Your mentality is the affront To society.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#5591 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
But there ARE legal requirements for marriage. If there weren't, there would be nothing to debate. But since the ability to reproduce isn't one of those requirements, it's a non-issue.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#5592 Dec 14, 2012
Ray wrote:
Homosexuality is immoral and an affront on society. Forcing people to accept "gay marriage" is like forcing people to accept funding for abortions.
One of the stupidest arguments against gay marriage is that people will have to accept it. Nobody can force you to be rational. You are free to believe absurd things like "homosexuality is immoral". No law can turn you into a rational, intelligent human being.

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 Smiling Tennessee hardware store owner puts 'No... 40 min MAGA 86
News US top court rules for baker in gay wedding cak... 2 hr Terra Firma 665
News Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in gay w... 5 hr Merle 5
News Methodists consider rules about same sex marria... 13 hr Hudson 16
News Fatherlessness is harder on Father's Day, but '... 14 hr Messenger of Love 2
News Natalie Portman slams Jared Kushner, calls her ... 14 hr Messenger of Love 3
News Indiana GOP platform keeps marriage between man... Mon Messenger of Love 27