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
4,061 - 4,080 of 5,438 Comments Last updated Jan 11, 2013
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4425
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4426
Nov 30, 2012
 
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,
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
Jane Dough wrote:
it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships.
It's not an either/or situation. They can print out as many marriage application forms as needed.
Jane Dough wrote:
Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.
And that would matter if you had to be able to reproduce in order to be allowed to marry.
Jane Dough wrote:
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.
What does that have to do with gay marriage?
Jane Dough wrote:
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.
And they still do that in states that allow gay marriage.
Jane Dough wrote:
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.
Not rational at all. Sterile straight couples aren't denied the benefits of marriage.
Jane Dough wrote:
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.
Rose's Law...
Jane Dough wrote:
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."
360 mothers?
No matter how a person feels about gay couples bringing up children, it's a separate issue. Gay couples can raise children without getting married, and marry without raising children.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4427
Nov 30, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering's Law:
That would be your logic.
How so, stupid?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4428
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The only *real* reason people are against gay marriage is bigotry. This bigotry can range from just being uncomfortable with the idea, to full blown homophobia. There just isn't a rational reason to be against gay marriage. People will quote the buy-bull, but that's about as far from being rational as you can get.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4429
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
How so, stupid?
Use your logic and figure it out.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4430
Nov 30, 2012
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
People will quote the buy-bull, but that's about as far from being rational as you can get.
I prefer to quote the Parkers and the Whirthins. Why are you being so bigoted?
The correct spelling is B-i-b-l-e. Your choice to ignore religion is your choice, why attack people that do believe?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4431
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose's Law:
Jane's law: skip Rose's moronic posts.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4432
Nov 30, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I prefer to quote the Parkers and the Whirthins. Why are you being so bigoted?
The correct spelling is B-i-b-l-e.
Because you have to buy a lot of bull to believe those stories are literally true.
Wondering wrote:
Your choice to ignore religion is your choice, why attack people that do believe?
Because they work to impose their absurd beliefs on others.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4433
Nov 30, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So you're saying you want to abolish marriage for anyone who doesn't have kids?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4434
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Wondering wrote:
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?"
For your first question, you need proof in order for it to be a valid claim. You've not been able to prove anything you said in the past, so I'm not holding my breath.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4435
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Use your logic and figure it out.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about since you can't explain yourself.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4436
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane's law: skip Rose's moronic posts.
Jane's Law: don't respond to anything that proves you wrong.

Yeah, that about sums it up.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4437
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you have to buy a lot of bull to believe those stories are literally true.
<quoted text>
Because they work to impose their absurd beliefs on others.
Most of them don't care what you do.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4438
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying you want to abolish marriage for anyone who doesn't have kids?
Look, stupid Canadian, here's what I said:
"I have kids and enjoy so many government benefits that you can't because you can't have your own kids."

You can draw any conclusions you wish from that.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4439
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
For your first question, you need proof in order for it to be a valid claim.
I don't care what you think is valid.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4440
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about since you can't explain yourself.
Actually, I did explain myself, you just don't have the capacity to understand.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4441
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what you think is valid.
It's false, you can't prove otherwise. You are lying and you think we won't catch you lying.

News flash: we always catch your lies, because you lie all the time.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4442
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
It's false, you can't prove otherwise. You are lying and you think we won't catch you lying.
News flash: we always catch your lies, because you lie all the time.
Do you help with household expenses or are you sponging 100% off of your parents?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4443
Nov 30, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, stupid Canadian, here's what I said:
"I have kids and enjoy so many government benefits that you can't because you can't have your own kids."
You can draw any conclusions you wish from that.
It's not my conclusions, you're saying that you believe no one should marry unless they currently have kids. There's no other way to ensure their marriage produces children, unless they already have kids. You don't support sterile marriage, elderly marriage, nor gay marriage.

This is what you are saying by opposing marriage without kids, Wonderbread.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4444
Nov 30, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I did explain myself, you just don't have the capacity to understand.
You said "use your logic."
Sorry, Wonderbread, but that isn't even close to explaining yourself.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••