Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

Oct 9, 2012 Full story: www.wisconsingazette.com 5,436

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
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4406 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you continue to post and say nothing.
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. Do you agree that these are state interests?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4407 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What specific reasons do you purport to have offered?
One would think you are playing dumb here. I don't think you're playing.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#4408 Nov 30, 2012
Hmmm.... the legislature COULD find......

I wonder what the legislature in New York DID find.....
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#4409 Nov 30, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to learn how to participate in an argument. I don't think you are capable of doing so. You method is ridiculous. You don't argue, you just reject whatever and whomever doesn't agree with you. You are laughable, Justice Dumbass.
Sounds like what you do with the APA, doesn't it?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4410 Nov 30, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like what you do with the APA, doesn't it?
I showed you why.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4411 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
forget they were in a court case, deal with the reasons in of themselves if you can:
"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."
Different from your mundane tactic, I honestly don't think you understand the reasons or the issues here...
that's why you play pete and repeat.
I mean, can you actually think that these reasons are negated by an unrelated legislative vote?
Of course, the legislature could do none of these things without first doing away with divorce, adoption, single parenthood, and any number of other conditions not currently under state control, which have no business being under state control.

Simply put, Jane, one would have to be inept to find this line of legal logic reasonable. What the state DID DO, was to pass legislation making same sex marriage legal, and rendering the decision you keep copy clipping (which make it ironic that you accuse others of mindless repetition) utterly irrelevant.

Simply put, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a prerequisite of procreation to obtain legal marriage, or a requirement of procreation once legally married.

Can you cite an ACTUAL legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4412 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the legislature could do none of these things without first doing away with divorce, adoption, single parenthood, and any number of other conditions not currently under state control,
Why?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4413 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the legislature could do none of these things without first doing away with divorce, adoption, single parenthood, and any number of other conditions not currently under state control, which have no business being under state control.
You really believe that adoption and divorce are not under state control? What are the "any number of other conditions?"

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4414 Nov 30, 2012
As predicted, Justice Dumbass will hide from questions that make him Justice Dumbass.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4415 Nov 30, 2012
Wondering wrote:
Why?
Can you actually read?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4416 Nov 30, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Since marriage isn't required for love and commitment, what else could it be?
So would you jump on the boat to abolish marriage?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4417 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you actually read?
Just answer the questions, Justice Dumbass.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4418 Nov 30, 2012
The questions:
1. 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. Do you agree that these are state interests?
2. You really believe that adoption and divorce are not under state control?
3. What are the "any number of other conditions?"
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4419 Nov 30, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
So would you jump on the boat to abolish marriage?
Why would I do that? I have kids and enjoy so many government benefits that you can't because you can't have your own kids.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4420 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dumbass is still hiding from the questions. Why? Because he hates admitting he's wrong. He'd rather be right than President. BWAHAHAHA!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4421 Nov 30, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Hmmm.... the legislature COULD find......
I wonder what the legislature in New York DID find.....
they took the courts invitation to offer benefits even though they were not and remain not required to do so by the NY constitution.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to point that out...
It would be more genuine if you actually responded to me instead of playing this childish game, but luckily I am watching you to alert others to the angry fraud you really are.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4422 Nov 30, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the legislature could do none of these things without first doing away with divorce, adoption, single parenthood, and any number of other conditions not currently under state control, which have no business being under state control.
totally clueless.
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Simply put,
there is no other way you put things...

and I have played pete and repeat long enough, I am now fully bored of you.
troll on troller.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#4423 Nov 30, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
By that logic "yes" is the same thing as "no".
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4424 Nov 30, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
By that logic "yes" is the same thing as "no".
it depends if a woman says it!
zing!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4425 Nov 30, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
By that logic "yes" is the same thing as "no".
Wondering's Law:
That would be your logic.

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
Analysis: Equal rights or statesa rights on gay... 4 min Reverend Alan 206
Ben Carson Warns Gay Couples Against Pushing Ba... 7 min RalphB 9
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 8 min Elvis 68,665
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 8 min Wondering 280
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 12 min Jonah1 8,058
Rep. Sally Kern Files Three Bills Against Same-... 17 min RalphB 14
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 22 min Not Yet Equal 57,030
GOP hopefuls weigh in on gay marriage 26 min RalphB 51
Evangelicals to Gays: We Have Nothing For You |... (Mar '10) 31 min Hank 18,819
More from around the web