Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

Oct 9, 2012 Full story: www.wisconsingazette.com 5,438

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.

Full Story
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4305 Nov 28, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I specifically remember you making comments regarding my "mommy."
And so you are being hypocritical.
yup, I did, and the fact that you live with her...
I don't know her first name, so what should I call her?

and since you do live with your mommy, whats the insult?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4306 Nov 28, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane's ad hominem attacks only serves to underscore the fact that they have no legitimate, rational, or factually supported argument to make.
is that like you claiming in every post that the person you are replying to is not capable?
Is that like how you insulted me for weeks over whether Bakers was a state case?
consistency is not even on your radar.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4307 Nov 28, 2012
lides wrote:
Do you think this kind of wrangling makes you look intelligent?
No, it makes you look like Justice Dumbass.
Ray

Lincoln City, OR

#4308 Nov 28, 2012
Gay "marriage" isn't about equality, it's about freaks wanting to mooch off the government and have the government recognize their abnormal behavior.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4309 Nov 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the stigma associated with your disorder talking. Ridiculous.
You prove my point yet again.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4310 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, I did, and the fact that you live with her...
I don't know her first name, so what should I call her?
and since you do live with your mommy, whats the insult?
I'm not insulted, I just recognize the fact that your comments were quite clearly attempts at insulting me. Others have noticed this as well and everyone has seen that you enjoy using ad hominem attacks because you never have a valid point. You've not once been able to back up your opinions with facts or credible sources.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4311 Nov 29, 2012
One of the tests for whether an asserted right should receive constitutional protection is whether it is deeply rooted in the Nationís history and tradition. Gay marriage is not.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4312 Nov 29, 2012
"Specifically, Regnerus found kids raised by gay parents, particularly lesbian parents, turned out worse socially, emotionally and in relationships than children who had married, heterosexual parents."
http://www.charismanews.com/us/34070-gay-agen...
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4313 Nov 29, 2012
1,000 HIV infections per month, ages 13 to 24, 72% are gay.
http://www.dallasvoice.com/cw-33-10132910.htm...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4314 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
so, a repeat?
AGAIN, you are mistaken as to what is rational in a laegal sense...
even though I just laid it out for you...
again.
What is rational is no different in a legal sense than in any other. You have failed to offer any rational reason why homosexuals should be denied the equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, to marry. That is inherently irrational.

Forget the fact that we are talking about a constitutional right and the standard of review that is actually relevant is strict scrutiny. Being that your argument fails to rise to the level of having a rational basis, you certainly lack the capacity to indicate a compelling state interest served by denying homosexuals the right to marry the partner of their choosing.
Jane Dough wrote:
is that like you claiming in every post that the person you are replying to is not capable?
Is that like how you insulted me for weeks over whether Bakers was a state case?
consistency is not even on your radar.
You are a little like a dog with a bone with this argument. Hereís the problem, rather than offering an argument that would prove me wrong, you complain that I dismiss your argument.

Each of your arguments has been dismissed, because each of them has been debunked. Oh, and there are courts that have a agreed that your arguments lack merit.

I do love that you bring up something like Baker. Is the strongest case that you have one that was decided when homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder? And the argument was not whether it was a state case, it was whether the US Supreme Court had ever ruled on the issue. It has not. The case was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, which is not a ruling.

It appears the best you can do for your position is to split hairs, and that is not going to win any legal argument.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4315 Nov 29, 2012
Wondering wrote:
One of the tests for whether an asserted right should receive constitutional protection is whether it is deeply rooted in the Nationís history and tradition. Gay marriage is not.
You do realize that Lawrence v Texas found that laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy did not qualify for heightened protection because they were not ďdeeply rootedĒ in the nationís history, but that didnít matter, because the laws failed to meet the level of having a rational basis, do you not?

You should really do a little research before you put your ignorance on display. Unless, of course, you like looking like a fool?
Wondering wrote:
"Specifically, Regnerus found kids raised by gay parents, particularly lesbian parents, turned out worse socially, emotionally and in relationships than children who had married, heterosexual parents."
http://www.charismanews.com/us/34070-gay-agen ...
Not that I expect you have the wherewithal to read this
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closere...
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...
Also, this study would have the same damning effect upon single parents, adoptive parents, and divorcees; since its results find that being raised by two biological parents are the ideal. Say nothing of the funding for the study, which draws into question the motives of the researchers.

Keep trying Wondering, Iím sure eventually you will find something that isnít a sham. You really arenít good at doing basic research on the BS you post.
Wondering wrote:
1,000 HIV infections per month, ages 13 to 24, 72% are gay.
http://www.dallasvoice.com/cw-33-10132910.htm ...
And? That is still no reason to deny equal protection of the laws.

Why do you hate the US Constitution and itís guarantee of equality for all?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4316 Nov 29, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not insulted,
So I merely stated a fact, one that did not insult you, so how the heck do you maintain I tried to insult you?
right, the usual reality aside, thingy...

and yet you claim who I am is important to my posts so you lie about me to dissuade anyone from reading...
yet you claim who you are is irrelevant so my even bringing it up is an attempt to insult you...
consistency aside as usual, huh?

In the end, and in truth, I am proud of who I am, so you deny it, and you are NOT proud of who you are, so you deny it and claim it is an insult to tell the truth about you..
its an ACTUAL insult that you lie about me, but what do I care what you imagine is reality...
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
you enjoy using ad hominem attacks
sure, just cut and paste one here...
given you think me telling the truth about you is an ad hominem attack in the midst of countless lies about me in your posts, I'd be interested for you to cut and paste an ad hominem attack against you....(Not to Mona, who is the only poster who is low enough for me to have to insult...)

I'll be waiting for that cut and paste of my insult to you, but soon when i don't get it I am busting out that word that starts with L and ends with iar....

want me to see if I can find a cut and paste where you insulted me, for you?

so, pot, meet kettle...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4317 Nov 29, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What is rational is no different in a legal sense than in any other.
FAIL.

at least do some research..
You use your ignorance as a sword!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4318 Nov 29, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Forget the fact that we are talking about a constitutional right and the standard of review that is actually relevant is strict scrutiny.
another huge FAIL.

Google "standards of review", they don't all get the same one....
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4319 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
FAIL.
at least do some research..
You use your ignorance as a sword!
I call it humor, some of it priceless.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4320 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
FAIL.
at least do some research..
You use your ignorance as a sword!
Rational basis review is a test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality. To pass rational basis review, the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis
You have yet to offer any such basis to deny homosexuals equal protection of the law to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing.

In fact, recently, you have ceased even so much as attempting to indicate such an interest. One could conclude that you have no argument to offer in support of your position. It certainly appears that way.
Jane Dough wrote:
another huge FAIL.
Google "standards of review", they don't all get the same one....
Are you claiming that equal protection of the laws would not be subject to strict scrutiny? It really matters little, since you havenít been able to offer an argument that meets the lowest level of judicial review thus far. Of course, you canít meet strict scrutiny if you cannot offer an argument that passes a rational basis test.

Thus far you have failed to do so. Recently, you have stopped even so much as trying to do so. All of which underscores your argumentís utter lack of rational, logical, or factual foundation.

How is denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry "rationally related to a legitimate government interest"?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4321 Nov 29, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is to say a married same sex couple is equal to a married opposite sex couple.
They never were and never will be.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4322 Nov 29, 2012
Wondering wrote:
I call it humor, some of it priceless.
I'm glad you find it amusing.

I find it intensely amusing that you are posting about how amusing you find it, instead of making an argument for your position. Posts like your most recent one illustrate that you have long since lost this argument, and you know it, which is why you don't continue to advance your long since debunked arguments. You are pathetic.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4323 Nov 29, 2012
Wondering wrote:
They never were and never will be.
Legally, they are, can, and will be equal. Do you know why? Because bigots like yourself can't offer even the most basic argument why legal equality, as laid out by the US Constitution, should not be afforded.

Feel free to join the grown ups and offer a thoughtful, rational, and factually supported argument, if you are able. I don't think you are, and posts like this one prove it.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4324 Nov 29, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Are you claiming that equal protection of the laws would not be subject to strict scrutiny? It really matters little, since you havenít been able to offer an argument that meets the lowest level of judicial review thus far.
your post is inconsistent...when while you claim all EP analysis is strict scrutiny you then plunge in tot his case and seek a rational basis...

and given YOU define rational basis as reason you agree with....you are playing pete and repeat, nothing more...

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
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 5 min KiMare 82
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 7 min testing 50,013
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 13 min The_Box 3,459
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 14 min KiMare 623
Coalition plan hopes to reduce Ohio LGBT youth ... 15 min Gremlin 14
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 16 min Frankie Rizzo 2,236
Board member opposes teaching definition of gay 17 min Wondering 97
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 1 hr KiMare 987

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE