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

#3710 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Evidently they got their degree from one of those worthless, non-accredited religious paper mills.
<quoted text>
Degree? lol
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#3711 Nov 14, 2012
Gee... You know what? I never knew that a couple had to have children in order to get a divorce.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#3712 Nov 14, 2012
Does anyone else smell desperation and failure?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3713 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Gee... You know what? I never knew that a couple had to have children in order to get a divorce.
who would say that?
at some point you need to grasp when it seems stupid to you, its coming from you and not me.
I only said the ending of a marriage or legal divorce also provides stability to children in allocating resources around the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, or do you dispute that this is the factor in an overwhelming majority of states?
Why do i even try, go ahead and continue to make up something stupid, say something stupid about it and then attribute it all to me, like i said its just another day!
Great job ignoring me too, do you have any trace of self control?
we both know the answer...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3714 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Does anyone else smell desperation and failure?
every time you post.
another thanks for enabling me...
you make a n easy target for me while I am on hold...

your self control is at zero...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3716 Nov 14, 2012
"True symbolism" is a meaningless term; symbolism by definition is up to individual perspective. This is a secular government; there is no sanctity to civil marriage.

Next time elton and I get together, I'll ask him about it. Because, you know, all gays know all other gays, and we're always in complete agreement. Just like heteros.
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
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

#3717 Nov 14, 2012
My sense of entitlment comes from the constitution, because I am a citizen and have every right to enjoy the same legal structures as my fellows.

Why would I seek a compromise that not only has no basis but which does not benefit me? BTW--in this "compromise", what do the religious give up?
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your sense of entitlement means you will seek no compromise...but I already knew that about you...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#3718 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
My sense of entitlment comes from the constitution, because I am a citizen and have every right to enjoy the same legal structures as my fellows.
Why would I seek a compromise that not only has no basis but which does not benefit me? BTW--in this "compromise", what do the religious give up?
<quoted text>
LEGAL marriage...you cant see that?
You cant see YOU are DENIED rights in 32 states?

its classic Solomon's cutting the baby in half, the name, and the rights, which one do you want more?
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#3719 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
"True symbolism" is a meaningless term; symbolism by definition is up to individual perspective. This is a secular government; there is no sanctity to civil marriage.
Next time elton and I get together, I'll ask him about it. Because, you know, all gays know all other gays, and we're always in complete agreement. Just like heteros.
<quoted text>
Really all gays know all other gays? I didn't know that. lol BTW, too bad that this government gives no "sanctity to civil marriage." I'll help you out in regards to Elton.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/...

Washington (CNN)- Elton John is expressing a newfound fondness for someone most would see as a foe, Rush Limbaugh, the outspokenly anti-gay marriage radio personality. In the new issue of Rolling Stone, to be released Friday, John discusses the thaw between the two, who many would expect to have a lot to disagree over.

John explained his reaction when asked by Limbaugh to perform at his wedding, "I could not believe when I was asked to play. I thought it was a joke."

Limbaugh wed Kathryn Rogers in Florida on June 5, 2010 in a lavish Hawaiian-themed ceremony. Photos of the fete are still available on Limbaugh's official Facebook page. It is his fourth marriage.

He further discussed his motivation to continue an alliance with Limbaugh, hoping that the camaraderie between the two will eventually morph into support for gay rights.

"I had dialogue with him before and he said,'I'm not anti-gay, I want you to come, bring David'(David Furnish, Elton John's partner of 12 years, with whom he legally entered a partnership during a civil ceremony in 2005 and with whom he has recently had a son by a surrogate).

"My goal is for Rush to say,'I support civil partnerships,' and if I rang him right now, I think he might agree. He was one of the first people to congratulate us on the baby."

Elton John was reportedly paid one million dollars to perform at Rush Limbaugh's wedding. Later, in July 2010 Limbaugh made comments on his radio show that drew a distinction between his view on gay marriage and civil unions saying "Elton John is not married to David Furnish, and Elton John is not a supporter of gay marriage. Elton John is on the same page as I am, as is Obama on gay marriage. He's for civil unions, but he's not for marriage."

Elton John had spoken out on behalf of civil unions but recently appeared to go a step further. At an American Foundation for Equal Rights event, he stated "It seems so ridiculous I could be with my partner for 17 years and we have a son, and my partner and I can't get married."

Like I said if they have the same rights and they are legally the same, then why can't the gays support civil unions? That way they don't insult the Christian Heteros and are on the same playing field.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3720 Nov 14, 2012
spud wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you can understand it if I explain it differently. Do you remember the Rasmussen poll before the election that put Romney ahead by 5%? What they do is start with the outcome they want, then they manipulate the numbers to reach that outcome. That's how most polls work. You can manipulate numbers to justify anything.
All you do is dodge the link in favor of your own rationalization. So by your logic, are we supposed to negate every study ever done anywhere? I told you to CLICK on the LINK. Show me where the numbers have been skewed, and so much so that the supposed zero effect that anyone can have on bullying shows up as it does.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3721 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?
You got it. It would be like telling me I could sit in the center of the bus as a compromise.
Jane Dough wrote:
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?
Yeah, I would want my inter-racial marriage to get the same RECOGNITION as a marriage of two people of the same race AS WELL AS THE SAME RIGHTS.
You act like that is a bad or strange desire.
Why do you think people have marriage ceremonies? They just have too much money and can't stand all that extra cash?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3722 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
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.
Jane Dough makes rational arguments.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3723 Nov 14, 2012
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The fact you feel allowing gay marriage would in any way harm the "true symbolism of "marriage" to a man & women getting together under the sanctity of the law " shows you are just a homophobe. Don't know about England, but in the US, the law isn't in the sanctity business. Understand now?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3724 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither is making bogus arguments about promiscuity.
Then stop. Oh, wait, you don't make arguments, you just fail at one liners.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3725 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
1. People divorce because it's in the best interest of the child.
2. Divorce is a stabilizing effect of marriage.
3. War is peace.
4. Ignorance is strength.
5. Freedom is slavery.
1. It's better than bringing them up in an unhappy household.
2. It makes people think before they act.
3. In Mona';s world.
4. It can be for some, it has you believing that your one liners are clever.
5. See #3
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3726 Nov 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
If you are here, then a sperm fertilized an egg.
<quoted text>
Yes, that means you have a mother and a father and the gender of the parents does matter..

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3727 Nov 14, 2012
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Really all gays know all other gays? I didn't know that. lol BTW, too bad that this government gives no "sanctity to civil marriage." I'll help you out in regards to Elton.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/...
Washington (CNN)- Elton John is expressing a newfound fondness for someone most would see as a foe, Rush Limbaugh, the outspokenly anti-gay marriage radio personality.
Limbaugh wed Kathryn Rogers in Florida on June 5, 2010 in a lavish Hawaiian-themed ceremony. Photos of the fete are still available on Limbaugh's official Facebook page. It is his fourth marriage.
Yeah, Limpaugh's for straight marriage, he's had four of them.
Ever notice how often these "protect marriage" people do such a crappy job of protecting their own marriages?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3728 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
LEGAL marriage...you cant see that?
You cant see YOU are DENIED rights in 32 states?
its classic Solomon's cutting the baby in half, the name, and the rights, which one do you want more?
False dichotomy.
And your stupidity.
With the Solomon myth, something would have been lost, the baby's life.
Nothing is lost by giving citizens equal rights, including the term "marriage".
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3729 Nov 14, 2012
RoHo, just so you know, I have responded to every intelligent post you've made today.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3730 Nov 14, 2012
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, stupid, that's not what I am saying.

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 California Lawmakers Move to Limit Gay Conversi... 8 min Frankie Rizzo 7
News Kansas teacher moves after receiving threats fo... 17 min Frankie Rizzo 25
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 49 min Frankie Rizzo 27,991
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Respect71 60,834
News Lesbian mum told baby won't be legally register... 3 hr Murphy 1
News School textbook with gay maths problem go viral 5 hr cpeter1313 8
News Federal Labor vows to crack down on gay convers... 9 hr Tre H 2
News 'Roseanne' Star Recalls Fight to Air Controvers... Apr 20 Frankie Rizzo 103