Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

Oct 9, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.wisconsingazette.com

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.

Comments (Page 203)

Showing posts 4,041 - 4,060 of5,438
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4405
Nov 30, 2012
 
lides wrote:
Feel free to actually make an argument in favor of your position, I don't think you are capable of doing so.
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.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4408
Nov 30, 2012
 
Hmmm.... the legislature COULD find......

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

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4415
Nov 30, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
Why?
Can you actually read?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4416
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

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

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4418
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4420
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4424
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
By that logic "yes" is the same thing as "no".
it depends if a woman says it!
zing!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,041 - 4,060 of5,438
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••