Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

[lides]

Jane Dough wrote:

BORING!
pete and repeat sat on a fence...
But you are right, I continue on with you which is not too bright.

Actually, you continue to post and say nothing.

Are you smart enough to articulate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, that would render such restrictions constitutional, and make your argument valid?

I don't think you are.

[Jane Dough]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, you continue to post and say nothing.
Are you smart enough to articulate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, that would render such restrictions constitutional, and make your argument valid?
I don't think you are.

After all your "you never gave me a reason", I gave you two AGAIN and you still wont even address them.

You merely state they are not rational and then ask again!

And a shocker, we are back to any poster who would addresses you has some deficiency to which I now agree...

Pete and repeat sat on a fence...

[lides]

Jane Dough wrote:

After all your "you never gave me a reason", I gave you two AGAIN and you still wont even address them.
You merely state they are not rational and then ask again!
And a shocker, we are back to any poster who would addresses you has some deficiency to which I now agree...
Pete and repeat sat on a fence...

What specific reasons do you purport to have offered? You often copy clip superseded legal decisions, but never actually isolate any specific point or concept to formulate an argument. Feel free to actually make an argument in favor of your position, I don't think you are capable of doing so. A fact that is supported by your regular citation of legal decisions that are not currently active, having been superseded by legislation.

[Jane Dough]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
What specific reasons do you purport to have offered? You often copy clip superseded legal decisions, but never actually isolate any specific point or concept to formulate an argument.

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?

[Wondering]

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]

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]

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]

Hmmm.... the legislature COULD find......

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

[Mona Lott]

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]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds like what you do with the APA, doesn't it?

I showed you why.

[lides]

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]

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]

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]

As predicted, Justice Dumbass will hide from questions that make him Justice Dumbass.

[lides]

Wondering wrote:

Why?

Can you actually read?

[Lacez]

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]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you actually read?

Just answer the questions, Justice Dumbass.

[Wondering]

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]

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]

Justice Dumbass is still hiding from the questions. Why? Because he hates admitting he's wrong. He'd rather be right than President. BWAHAHAHA!