Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

[dognes]

youtube.com/watch... …
Thats what Paul Ryan said now see if he carries the words that he has spoken,and Ryan will carry the weight a long time?

[Rose_NoHo]

Wondering wrote:

One of the tests for whether an asserted right should receive constitutional protection is whether it is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. Gay marriage is not.

So, you're OK with slavery?
Oh, you're a fundie, so you might be.
But, no dummy, appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy.
The Constitution says all US citizens should get equal protection under the law.
You have a problem with that.

[Rose_NoHo]

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...

Rose's Law:
A moron with no real argument screams, "But what about the children!?"

The comparison is meaningless. To make a meaningful comparison, you'd either have to compare married same sex couples to married opposite sex couples, or gay parents to straight parents. And charismanews.com is a fundie web site, so it can be dismissed.

[Rose_NoHo]

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Can't answer simple questions?
Your living conditions and age embarrass you?
Are you sponging off of your parents?
How old are you? I never would have guessed you were older than 16.

Guess you can't come up with a good argument against gay marriage, huh?

[Rose_NoHo]

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
In most states, gay marriage isn't legal marriage. State regulations governing marriage do apply equally to ALL citizens in the state's jurisdiction. So, what's your argument?

You are lying. A man can walk into the JP in any state and ask to marry a woman. He'll be told "Yes". A woman will be told "No" in most states.

Yes != No

[Rose_NoHo]

Still, not one rational argument against gay marriage.

[John from Texas]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

Still, not one rational argument against gay marriage.

The only arguments I would have against gay marriage would be the same exact arguments I would have against straight marriage.

[snyper]

Ray wrote:

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

How do you know this?

[Wondering]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are lying. A man can walk into the JP in any state and ask to marry a woman. He'll be told "Yes". A woman will be told "No" in most states.
Yes != No

This seems easy enough to understand:
State regulations governing marriage do apply equally to ALL citizens in the state's jurisdiction.

What's your deficiency?

[Wondering]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you know this?

Since marriage isn't required for love and commitment, what else could it be?

[Jane Dough]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Third person singular, gender neutral. It seems to fit you like a charm.
<quoted text>
There are a number of reasons why those reasons you have offered are not rational.
First of all, you have offered Hernandez, which has been overturned by an act of the legislature of New York, an action that was invited by the decision itself. Hernandez only applied to New York, which now allows gay marriage. The decision does little, if anything at all to support your argument, and ironically its language has not appeared in decisions in other states. If it was the legal masterpiece that you so desperately wish that it were, then it’s language would have appeared elsewhere.
Secondly, you have referred to Baker, which was decided by the Minnesota State Supreme Court at a time when homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder, and was jettisoned by the US Supreme Court for want of a substantial federal question. It is also worthy of note that there have been multiple federal courts, and several federal appellate courts that have diverged from this “binding precedent”, illustrating clearly that it is anything but binding.
Third, you have failed to answer the simple and direct question put before you nearly a dozen times in this iteration. In order to satisfy the lowest level of judicial review, a law must serve a legitimate state interest. What state interest is served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?
If the law on this point is as plain as you have said, you should have no difficulty in offering a simple and direct response, yet you have not. Why is that? Perhaps, because you are incapable of indicating any such interest?

see how you addressed ONLY the case's procedural posture?
NOTHING you said relates in any way to the reasonableness or rationality of the reasons cited therein.

For the third time, what is not rational about the reasons given to you?

[Jane Dough]

John from Texas wrote:

You very few folks are not getting anywhere. Maybe it's time to end this post. By the way....... Love works. Hate doesn't.

I hope this good advice was directed at everyone. I think anyone who watches this thread can see mounds of hate on BOTH sides....

[lides]

Jane Dough wrote:

see how you addressed ONLY the case's procedural posture?
NOTHING you said relates in any way to the reasonableness or rationality of the reasons cited therein.
For the third time, what is not rational about the reasons given to you?

That's simply because there isn't reasonableness or rationality of the reasons cited therein.

This is why you cannot address the simple question of what legitimate state interest is served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

By your own logic, if the law is as cut and dried in this area as you seem to assume, it should be a simple question to answer. That you regularly do not answer it, and what is more do not even attempt to, implies volumes.

[Jane Dough]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
That's simply because there isn't reasonableness or rationality of the reasons cited therein.

really?
its not rational because its not rational?
you ARE going to have to do better than that...WAY better!

Here are two reasons, please address them specifically:

"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. 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.

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.

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 [*360] mothers, 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."

[lides]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
really?
its not rational because its not rational?
you ARE going to have to do better than that...WAY better!
Here are two reasons, please address them specifically:
"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. 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.
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.
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 [*360] mothers, 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 do realize what a rationalization is, don't you?
Rationalize (transative verb) to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

The state has no interest in children being raise by two biological parents. Children can be born out of wedlock, parents may put children up for adoption, single parents may legally adopt, and divorce is legal. Any one of these activities allowed by the state torpedos this line of logic.

What is more, the legislature DID address the issue, and crafted legislation to ALLOW same sex marriage, which supersedes the decision in Hernandez v Robels.

Please do try and keep up.

Can you offer any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? Child rearing by two biological parents doesn't pass muster for the reasons listed above.

[Jane Dough]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize what a rationalization is, don't you?
Rationalize (transative verb) to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
The state has no interest in children being raise by two biological parents. Children can be born out of wedlock, parents may put children up for adoption, single parents may legally adopt, and divorce is legal. Any one of these activities allowed by the state torpedos this line of logic.
What is more, the legislature DID address the issue, and crafted legislation to ALLOW same sex marriage, which supersedes the decision in Hernandez v Robels.
Please do try and keep up.
Can you offer any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? Child rearing by two biological parents doesn't pass muster for the reasons listed above.

yes, a rationalization would suffice under "rational" basis...

guess what sonny, even a rationalization invented buy the court and not advanced by the legislature would and has sufficed for rational basis review.

so yes, it is clear you do not understand rational basis review and then you use that ignorance as a sword demanding people give you a a rational reason to which you apply strict scrutiny!

You did not address the issue at all, its rational to encourage committed straights over all the rest you cite.

Also, you didn't even address the second one (you have been asking for reason forever one would think if you were honestly seeking reasons you would address both given to you) before you lapsed back into erroneously and ignorantly critiquing the case...

I know why you look past the answers, so you can ask for them again..

Pete and repeat.

[lides]

Jane Dough wrote:

yes, a rationalization would suffice under "rational" basis...
guess what sonny, even a rationalization invented buy the court and not advanced by the legislature would and has sufficed for rational basis review.
so yes, it is clear you do not understand rational basis review and then you use that ignorance as a sword demanding people give you a a rational reason to which you apply strict scrutiny!
You did not address the issue at all, its rational to encourage committed straights over all the rest you cite.
Also, you didn't even address the second one (you have been asking for reason forever one would think if you were honestly seeking reasons you would address both given to you) before you lapsed back into erroneously and ignorantly critiquing the case...
I know why you look past the answers, so you can ask for them again..
Pete and repeat.

Wow, you're not that bright.

Can you offer a legitimate state interest (which would be the "rationalization" in your world) served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?

If you cannot, then your argument could not pass a rational basis test, and your argument remains dead in the water.

[Jane Dough]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you're not that bright.
Can you offer a legitimate state interest (which would be the "rationalization" in your world) served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?
If you cannot, then your argument could not pass a rational basis test, and your argument remains dead in the water.

BORING!

pete and repeat sat on a fence...

But you are right, I continue on with you which is not too bright.

[Wondering]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
1. The state has no interest in children being raise by two biological parents.
2. Children can be born out of wedlock, parents may put children up for adoption, single parents may legally adopt, and divorce is legal. Any one of these activities allowed by the state torpedos this line of logic.

1. That wins December's dumbest statement of the month award.
2. Logic is foreign to you.

A child being raised by both biological parents is less likely to be on welfare*, drop out of school*, commit crimes* and use illegal drugs and alcohol*.

*State interests.

[Wondering]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize what a rationalization is, don't you?

In your case, rationalization is making up excuses. Pathetic excuses at that.