Paul Ryan promises hate group that he...

Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

There are 5444 comments on the www.wisconsingazette.com story from Oct 9, 2012, titled Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality. In it, www.wisconsingazette.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.wisconsingazette.com.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4786 Dec 4, 2012
NoQ wrote:
I can see that you Fa$$ots just want special rights set up just for HO:MOS. Any child can see as much. One wonders why you cannot.
It's not a special right, as marriage already exists in every state in the union. Obviously you cannot articulate any intelligent or rational reason why it should be denied to same sex couples, which would render such a restriction constitutional. Instead, you grace us with infantile taunts.

Congratulations, well played. You've made yourself look like an inarticulate fool, and accomplished nothing else.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4787 Dec 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
2. One set of laws for all persons, equal.
Good. So we are agreed, same sex couples should have equal protection of the law to marry. It took you long enough to grow enough brain cells to see what is painfully obvious.
Wondering wrote:
3. There are two classes, male and female. The laws apply equally to both.
Oh dear. So, now you are saying only same sex marriage should be legal? What did you do, turn around, smoke a joint, and kill the three or so newly acquired brain cells you had just formed?

Wondering, get a clue. Equality will come to pass because it is required by the US Constitution. Oh, and when it happens, there will be no impact whatsoever upon your life or your rights. I suspect you already know this, because no one could actually be as dumb as you pretend to be.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#4788 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. So we are agreed, same sex couples should have equal protection of the law to marry. It took you long enough to grow enough brain cells to see what is painfully obvious.
<quoted text>
Oh dear. So, now you are saying only same sex marriage should be legal? What did you do, turn around, smoke a joint, and kill the three or so newly acquired brain cells you had just formed?
Wondering, get a clue. Equality will come to pass because it is required by the US Constitution. Oh, and when it happens, there will be no impact whatsoever upon your life or your rights. I suspect you already know this, because no one could actually be as dumb as you pretend to be.
It hasn't had no impact yet (he lives in MASS.) why has he not moved by now?? I call BS!
TheTroll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#4789 Dec 4, 2012
Makes sense wrote:
off-topic nonsense
Excuse me, but this thread's title is "Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality".

When you have something to say that deals with the actual topic of this thread, please let us know. Until then, feel free to STFU.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4790 Dec 4, 2012
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>It hasn't had no impact yet (he lives in MASS.) why has he not moved by now?? I call BS!
Too stupid to move.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#4791 Dec 4, 2012
No, it's not a fact; it's your uneducated opinion.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't an argument, it was fact.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#4792 Dec 4, 2012
That a sister died of multiple heart perforations a month after birth makes you downright smug?
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. I also, unlike your parents, didn't create any children with a birth defect.
My sympathy goes out to them.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#4793 Dec 4, 2012
Circumcision itself is a barbaric ritual; giving suck to an infant is usually illegal all by itself. Who knew fellatio was a religious right? I guess some of those priests wee just more devout than others...
Makes sense wrote:
How far will he go to protect Religious Freedom?
New York, Orthodox Jews Clash Over Circumcision
December 3, 2012
by: Joel Rose, NPR
Michael Nagle for The New York Times/Redux
Rabbi A. Romi Cohn, a noted mohel, prepares an infant for circumcision at Congregation Shaare Zion in Brooklyn on Sept. 4. Cohn opposes a New York City rule requiring parental consent for a type of circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews.
An ancient circumcision ritual is at the center of a present-day legal battle in New York.
The New York City Department of Health wants to require parental consent for a controversial circumcision practice, which it says can spread the herpes virus. But several Jewish organizations are suing to block the new rule, which they say violates their freedom of religion.
Jewish law requires that all baby boys be circumcised on the eighth day of life. Orthodox Jews sometimes follow with a ritual known as metzitzah b'peh. Immediately after the boy is circumcised, the man who performs the ritual — known as a mohel — takes a mouthful of wine. Then he places his mouth around the base of the boy's penis and uses suction to clean the wound.
The mayor is the mayor of the city of New York. But we have a mayor; he's the mayor of the universe. We gonna follow his instructions.
Metzitzah b'peh is supposed to prevent infection. And when it's done correctly, proponents say, that's exactly what it does.
"I did, I think, over 35,000 circumcisions," says A. Romi Cohn, a mohel from the Borough Park section of Brooklyn. "Never had one incident where a baby got an infection. Never, never, never."
Cohn is also the chairman of the American Board of Ritual Circumcision. He says mohels who are properly trained and certified are not a threat to the health of the baby. "Our regulation is very strict about protecting human lives," says Cohn. "If there's any slight possibility — I'm not saying 50 percent, even 1 percent — that that baby gonna get hurt, we not allowed to perform that circumcision."
Requiring Consent For A 'Risky' Procedure
Most circumcisions in New York probably do not involve metzitzah b'peh. Still, the city's Health Department says it has linked the practice to nearly a dozen recent cases of the herpes virus in young boys.
http://app1.kuhf.org/print-articles/npr135457...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#4794 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep it coming, Jane. You only make yourself look foolish.
Why won't you google up something that supports your interpretation?

trouble finding a basis in reality?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#4795 Dec 4, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Pregnancy is a biological happenstance. the RIGHT involved is that of self-determination and privacy. Men have the same right oncerning their medical decisions.
See how that works?
<quoted text>
does the man have a right to decide if the baby that is partly his lives?
NO?

what about the 14th amendment?
you mean rights are tied to biological abilities?
no way!
we must all be bigoted against dads...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#4796 Dec 4, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>

The fact that I've gotten under your skin so much and that you can't handle it is quite amusing.
thinking you are pathetic is not the same as getting under my skin...
in reality you are a kid in your moms basement making up stuff about me...
why would I put any stock in that to get upset?

but I do get that is what you are REALLY trying to do here...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4797 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Why won't you google up something that supports your interpretation?
trouble finding a basis in reality?
It's not really my problem to deal with your education.

Google the 14th Amendment, it supports my position quite nicely, and thus far you have lacked the ability to indicate any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#4798 Dec 4, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, Jane...it's hilarious when you lose your shit likes this. You're simply mad that he proved you wrong.
I enjoy taking shots at Mona...
you'll understand when you get older...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4799 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
does the man have a right to decide if the baby that is partly his lives?
NO?
what about the 14th amendment?
you mean rights are tied to biological abilities?
no way!
we must all be bigoted against dads...
Are you high? How do you think this in any way relates to the topic at hand?

Here's a clue, the mother is the host to the fetus. You know, the old my body is my business routine.

Why would anyone have the right to decide what happens with someone else's body?

The quality of your arguments is severely declining, and they weren't that good to begin with.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#4800 Dec 4, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see anything wrong with it .
psst, last week you said something different...
You don't have to remember if you don't lie!

oh, BTW, last week you were crying about how insulted you were over me, and this week, you are psyched to get under my skin?

You have already been honest about your living conditions, now be honest about this, do you take meds?
Don't worry, the whole world is bi-polar!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#4801 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not really my problem to deal with your education.
Google the 14th Amendment, it supports my position quite nicely, and thus far you have lacked the ability to indicate any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
silly boy...

unfortunately this is a complex issue and you are simple...

For one, we were discussing Hernandez not being good law anymore, find any support for that anywhere with this great big internet?
why do you think that is?

You asked for any reason, I gave you two, you claim the case is "superceded" but you cannot find anything that says that so reality aside and NEVER address the reason themselves and then claim I never gave you ANY reasons at all.

Over and over...its very silly, and I am very bored of it...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#4802 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

the mother is the host to the fetus. You know, the old my body is my business routine.
Why would anyone have the right to decide what happens with someone else's body?
Equal rights of the other parent who will be liable to support the child if born?

oh wait, there is no equal rights over a child, the BIOLOGICAL fact that a woman can carry a child gives them additional rights?

thanks for proving my point...

Procreation also gets extra rights...
to acknowledge physical abilities and limitations is rational, not bigotry..

a woman carries the baby and gets the right, a couple procreates and gets the right.

see how that works?
I know you do, but since it results you you not getting what you want, you will pretend you don't...but I tried...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#4803 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

The quality of your arguments is severely declining, and they weren't that good to begin with.
funny your haven't changed at all (and I mean word for word) and they were pure nonsense to start with...

so, we done with each other yet?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4804 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Equal rights of the other parent who will be liable to support the child if born?
oh wait, there is no equal rights over a child, the BIOLOGICAL fact that a woman can carry a child gives them additional rights?
thanks for proving my point...
Jane, you have yet to prove that procreation is either a prerequisite of or requirement of marriage, in part because you cannot? Do you know why? Because procreation is not a prerequisite for, nor is it a requirement of marriage. People regularly marry who have either no intention of procreating, or even no ability to do so.

Already, this procreative definition of marriage has led to some puzzled questioning by Judge Walker, and some peculiar exchanges, like this one, at the pretrial hearing:

The Court: The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was ninety-five, and the bride was eighty-three. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?
Mr. Cooper: No, your Honor, you weren’t. Of course, you didn’t.
The Court: And I might say it was a very happy relationship.
Mr. Cooper: I rejoice to hear that.

Same-sex couples “do not naturally procreate,” Cooper persisted.“That is the natural outcome of sexual activity between opposite-sex couples.”
“Fair enough, but procreation doesn’t require marriage,” replied Judge Walker, who noted that he’d heard on the radio that morning that forty per cent—“can this be right?”—of pregnancies occur in unwed females. Yes, Cooper allowed, that was a sad statistic, but the state still discouraged sexual activity among people who are not married, as it should, because it had a “vital interest” in “promoting responsible procreation.” The “body politic ultimately has to take responsibility or shoulder some of the burden”—often through public assistance—of raising children when their parents didn’t “take that responsibility properly.”(He did not address whether gays and lesbians were any more likely to shirk their responsibility, perhaps because many gay and lesbian parents go to great lengths to have children in the first place.)

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18...
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#4805 Dec 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it wasn't worth the effort. The APA was being infiltrated by gay practitioners and gay activists were becoming more aggressive. They decided that because gays didn't want to change there was no point
Oh puh-leez. A vote when you have a 2/3rds majority isn't worth the effort?

And when did they "decide" that gays didn't want to change? Did they take a vote?

Can you make yourself look any more stupid?

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
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 min Jasonville 6,173
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Wondering 49,494
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 2 hr neighbor 1,678
News Two men caned 83 times at Indonesian mosque for... 3 hr Rose_NoHo 34
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 6 hr Lilly 25,678
Jade's Turkey Lodge 6 hr Sharp shooter 2
News Ruling: Refusal to print gay pride shirts not d... 7 hr TomInElPaso 266
More from around the web