Paul Ryan promises hate group that he...

Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

There are 5442 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.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3688 Nov 14, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

Allowing gay marriage wouldn't make fathers leave, so what exactly is your point?
nope, but when they have no fathers to start with...

CAPS LOCK is so you guys can see the important words like they do in elementary school TEXTBOOKS...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3689 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
You aren't in a position to offer anything, so why do you keep harping on this crap? Your "hypothetical" is insulting to gay people and american citizens in general. Why leave a LEGAL term to the religious? There are already religious terms they can use, such as matrimony. Maybe we need to ban religious groups from using "marriage"...hypothe tically, of course.
<quoted text>
so now my hypothetical offer to compromise was bigotry huh?

wow.
do you type that word out every time or keep it on a clipboard?

is to get a sense of the rights are REALLY what you are after...and clearly ITS NOT...
you wouldnt know from how you guys go on and on about being denied them...turns out, it seems you need the name simply because THEY have it...
It is interesting but I will have to consider that and come up with anew compromise taking into account that you guys are not necessarily being rational yourselves...given you would forego all rights for your families over the gamble you can win and dominate the name marriage....again, very interesting, but thats what hypos expose...
so, can you even contemplate a solution thats not you winning all?
Psst, that's what THEY would say too...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3690 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so, HYPOTHETICALLY you could have all the rights you seek, but not the name and you reject that?
If that were the offer, religious marriage and a distinct legal partnership for all, you would reject it?
again, I find that very inneresting...
so the rights are not it exactly, it IS the RECOGNITION, huh?
that's exasctly what we have now. religious marriage rites and legal marriage. two separate and didstinct entities.

we just need to follow our constitution and make that right available to all.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3691 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Marriage is a commitment to the other spouse; there is no legal requirement to live together. There are couples whose work keeps them apart--like the military.
There is also no requirement to have a legal separation. Assets are distibuted on a variety of factors, including prior ownership, agreement between the parties, etc.
Divorce stabilizes marriage?
<quoted text>
no. divorce is the tail end of the stabilization of marriage in that it provides a stable exit from marriage...
one that without marriage would not be available...
a court ordered division of assets and income....

if there are kids, the factors are THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD...
a curious factor for a divorce from marriage given they have nothing to do with children, right?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3692 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
You aren't in a position to offer anything, >
nor are you in a position to offer or concede anything...
thats what that hypothetical word means...
if that was the standard, no post here matters...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3693 Nov 14, 2012
Nobody divorces for the best interests of the child; they divorce because they no longer wish to be a couple. If they did, then the whole "mother and father are best for the child" paradigm would be a complete lie.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
When they separate based on the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, I would say that's better than one of the parents juts splitting, wouldn't you?
a more STABLE way to divide a family if necessary?
Oh right, reality aside just so you can trash me...
just another day.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3694 Nov 14, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>that's exasctly what we have now. religious marriage rites and legal marriage. two separate and didstinct entities.
we just need to follow our constitution and make that right available to all.
you combined them again..
its LEGAL partnerships for all couples regardless of orientation, and religious marriages...
whattayasay?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3695 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I get that ...
But I am asking, if someone offered a single institution that applied to all people but was not the named marriage, would you take it?
In other words, HYPOTHETICALLY, if all religious people agreed to drop their objection to recognizing gay relationships in the same LEGAL institution as straight ones, would you GIVE them the name marriage to make the deal?
I am hearing you say "no", the religious cant have the name, but that cant be right, can it?
it's really a non -issue. religions have no say in legal marriage.

you are correct that it is a hypothetical, thus not worth discussing. we have a name for our legal institution, it is marriage. no reason to change it.

do you really think religious people that are opposed to SSM would go for your hypothetical? not many that I know of. non-issue.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3696 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nobody divorces for the best interests of the child; they divorce because they no longer wish to be a couple. If they did, then the whole "mother and father are best for the child" paradigm would be a complete lie.
<quoted text>
actually, not true, but that's another story...

BUT marriage provides a court looking at the couple and making a determination of how to go from here, which is something that provides a more stable break up that non married people who DO NOT GET this...
AND in those proceedings, the entire analysis is guided by the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD...a curious way to break up a marriage if what you think is true(that marriage has nothing to do with children), no?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3697 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I get that ...
But I am asking, if someone offered a single institution that applied to all people but was not the named marriage, would you take it?
In other words, HYPOTHETICALLY, if all religious people agreed to drop their objection to recognizing gay relationships in the same LEGAL institution as straight ones, would you GIVE them the name marriage to make the deal?
I am hearing you say "no", the religious cant have the name, but that cant be right, can it?
Gay people don't owe superstitious bigots anything. And those bigots can still use the word "marriage", nothing is being taken from them, they aren't giving up a damn thing.

HYPOTHETICALLY, if this were still the 60's, and I wanted to marry my boyfriend, I wouldn't compromise with the fundies and call my marriage something else like "mixed race civil union" to placate them.
After all, the only argument sited in Loving v VA *against* interracial marriage was:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
And by "almighty god", I don't think they meant Zeus, or even Allah.

I'd say, "Go fk yourselves, I want equal rights." Why should gay people compromise?

BTW, not all religious people are selfish homophobic nut jobs. So, instead of saying "religious people", be honest and say "fundamentalist Christians", OK?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3698 Nov 14, 2012
You've never seen a messy divorce, evidently. There is nothing stabilizing aboout it.

There are many ways property is divided, and it's not all about the children. Some states have community property, some don't. In some states, property purchased befoe the marriage reverts to the owner regardless of the kids.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no. divorce is the tail end of the stabilization of marriage in that it provides a stable exit from marriage...
one that without marriage would not be available...
a court ordered division of assets and income....
if there are kids, the factors are THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD...
a curious factor for a divorce from marriage given they have nothing to do with children, right?
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#3699 Nov 14, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So, go and get some. Envy isn't healthy.
Neither is making bogus arguments about promiscuity.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#3700 Nov 14, 2012
People divorce because it's in the best interest of the child.

Divorce is a stabilizing effect of marriage.

War is peace.

Ignorance is strength.

Freedom is slavery.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#3701 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
You've never seen a messy divorce, evidently. There is nothing stabilizing aboout it.
There are many ways property is divided, and it's not all about the children. Some states have community property, some don't. In some states, property purchased befoe the marriage reverts to the owner regardless of the kids.
<quoted text>
Don't you find it odd that a "lawyer" doesn't know that?
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#3702 Nov 14, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact you feel allowing gay marriage would " stomp on the symbolism of marriage for a man and a woman" shows you are just a homophobe. People shouldn't have to do without to step around your bigotry.
Marriage is a right in the US (don't know about England, or if you are even telling the truth about it), and all US citizens should have equal rights WRT marriage.
No bigot, it just shows that I respect "the symbolism of marriage for a man and a woman". Plus it also shows bigot that you read with emotional hatred and not with your head as you did not read my post thoroughly. Here is what I said:

"OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know why the Gays can not use the term civil unions like they do in England and not stomp on the symbolism of marriage for a man and a woman for the rest of society. IF legally they are the same, then civil union should do just fine for the homosexuals."

Please note: " IF legally they are the same, then civil union should do just fine for the homosexuals." I said the same, OK bigot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnershi...

"Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce."

Do you understand now, bigot? Your Gay Marriage (Civil union)would be the same and leave the true symbolism of "marriage" to a man & women getting together under the sanctity of the law. BTW, Elton John is perfectly fine with a civil union.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3703 Nov 14, 2012
What do we say?

No. How dense are you? Marriage is a legal institution. Nobody cares what the religious call it.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you combined them again..
its LEGAL partnerships for all couples regardless of orientation, and religious marriages...
whattayasay?
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#3704 Nov 14, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think using the caps lock key makes up for the fact you don't have a point?
<quoted text>
Rose's Law...
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
Allowing gay marriage wouldn't make fathers leave, so what exactly is your point?
SO, you are saying that all liberals are "Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?" as that is what they say ALL the time. But what about the children as they use children as human shields when they hike up you tax rate or layer another set of taxes.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3705 Nov 14, 2012
Evidently they got their degree from one of those worthless, non-accredited religious paper mills.
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text> Don't you find it odd that a "lawyer" doesn't know that?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3706 Nov 14, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people don't owe superstitious bigots anything. And those bigots can still use the word "marriage", nothing is being taken from them, they aren't giving up a damn thing.
HYPOTHETICALLY, if this were still the 60's, and I wanted to marry my boyfriend, I wouldn't compromise with the fundies and call my marriage something else like "mixed race civil union" to placate them.
After all, the only argument sited in Loving v VA *against* interracial marriage was:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
And by "almighty god", I don't think they meant Zeus, or even Allah.
I'd say, "Go fk yourselves, I want equal rights." Why should gay people compromise?
BTW, not all religious people are selfish homophobic nut jobs. So, instead of saying "religious people", be honest and say "fundamentalist Christians", OK?
so, no, you don't care about the rights as long as the relgiious get to define the word marriage?
that's what you are saying.....
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3707 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
What do we say?
No. How dense are you? Marriage is a legal institution. Nobody cares what the religious call it.
<quoted text>
I see your sense of entitlement means you will seek no compromise...but I already knew that about you...

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Boy Scouts suffer a setback in Supreme Court ov... (Oct '06) 4 min RecoveringRacist 322
News Richard Page, from Headcorn, loses case after b... 1 hr Abrahammock Relig... 1
News Oregon city council sorry after member says he'... 2 hr Abrahammock Relig... 3
News The gaydar machine: a backlash 2 hr Abrahammock Relig... 7
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 hr old_moose 13,219
Transgender "woman" convicted of raping 10-year... 3 hr Travis Turbil 3
News Australians embarrassed to be shown up by NZ on... 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 3
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 4 hr Abrahammock Relig... 359
News College to offer sensitivity training after ant... 11 hr Abrahammock Relig... 9
News Stopping hate crimes against transgender Americans 16 hr Lewis 14
More from around the web