Paul Ryan promises hate group that he...

Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

There are 5436 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.

Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#4806 Dec 4, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, and there's always idiots with nothing better to do than spend millions of dollars for so called research, watching a few million animals in hopes of seeing one perverted one to document. That doesn't mean it's frequent or normal. Just like there's killers in all species. That's doesn't make it normal either. You have articles saying the loch Ness monster is real also. Or even Sasquatch or the abominable snowman. That doesn't make it so just because an article says so.
Oh puh-leez, closet boy. Go get an education and stop embarrassing yourself.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#4807 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Honey, the quality of Jane's arguments can't get any lower. Jane actually thinks he's fooling us with his logical fallacies and half-baked opinions..
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#4808 Dec 4, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
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 to ask for something that you already have.

Any child can see you are a closet case. One wonders why you don't just come out.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4810 Dec 4, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, the quality of Jane's arguments can't get any lower. Jane actually thinks he's fooling us with his logical fallacies and half-baked opinions..
And Mona thinks he is fooling us with his short posts of vitrol...

Why do you guys think she is so adamant at bashing me and insisting I am not a lawyer?

Why do you think he will NEVER respond to me directly but reads and responds to EVERY ONE of my posts?(saying what he thinks I don't do for a living)

I know why.

For the same reason he constantly lies about me and what I have said.

Bullying.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4811 Dec 4, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Honey, the quality of Jane's arguments can't get any lower. Jane actually thinks he's fooling us with his logical fallacies and half-baked opinions..
Half-baked? My, you are being generous. I just enjoy watching the tap dancing.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4812 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Classic, Judge walker's critical reasoning was SPECIFICALLY overturned.

I would say I was surprised by your ignorance and inconsistency given your claim on Hernandez, but, its you. so I think I called that you would do this very thing YESTERDAY!

its getting so I don't even need you in this conversation anymore....

Since: Dec 12

Bakersfield, CA

#4813 Dec 4, 2012
Most of these hot-shot "family values" conservatives turn out to be closet self-hating homosexuals anyways. See Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glen Murphy, etc. A lot of these guys spoke incessantly against "gay marriage" while trying to solicit sexual favors with other men. Will Paul Ryan 'go the way of the tempting snake' next?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#4814 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Half-baked? My, you are being generous. I just enjoy watching the tap dancing.
classic. Love you two...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4815 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Classic, Judge walker's critical reasoning was SPECIFICALLY overturned.
I would say I was surprised by your ignorance and inconsistency given your claim on Hernandez, but, its you. so I think I called that you would do this very thing YESTERDAY!
its getting so I don't even need you in this conversation anymore....
Jane, the logic is correct. If the state allows one infertile couple to marry, then they cannot prevent another infertile couple from marrying without a legitimate state interest being served.

Your arguments consistently fail to indicate any such legitimate state interest.

I wish you were arguing the case against same sex marriage before the US Supreme Court, you woulld be laughed out of the room.
Moan a Lott

Montpelier, VT

#4819 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, the logic is correct. If the state allows one infertile couple to marry, then they cannot prevent another infertile couple from marrying without a legitimate state interest being served.
Your arguments consistently fail to indicate any such legitimate state interest.
I wish you were arguing the case against same sex marriage before the US Supreme Court, you woulld be laughed out of the room.
You are too funny!

"Judge Walker's decision made a sweeping proclamation that, in effect, there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Perhaps recognizing that this holding would have a hard time surviving appellate scrutiny given the current state of the law, he grounded his decision on a broad base of factual findings about the purpose and effect of Proposition 8, presumably hoping for the deference appellate courts grant to a district court's factual findings.

But the 9th Circuit was convinced by the proponents of Prop 8 (whose counsel is no slouch either) that most of Judge Walker's factual findings were "legislative facts," i.e. generalized facts, rather than the type of case-specific facts to which appellate courts might defer, and didn't defer to Judge Walker's fact-finding."

So I have support in reality that what you cite is not good law, yet you mock me for citing to hernandez when you can find nothing showing is not good law?

exactly.

Anyone one who is impressed by you is not someone I want to impress...
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4820 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, the logic is correct. If the state allows one infertile couple to marry, then they cannot prevent another infertile couple from marrying without a legitimate state interest being served.
Your arguments consistently fail to indicate any such legitimate state interest.
"they cannot prevent another infertile couple from marrying"
Gays aren't infertile, Justice Dumbass. They just have sex with the wrong partner.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4821 Dec 4, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, it's not a fact; it's your uneducated opinion.
<quoted text>
You don't have to be very educated to see that it's fact. What's your problem?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4822 Dec 4, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
That a sister died of multiple heart perforations a month after birth makes you downright smug?
<quoted text>
Did you finish high school? You are the birth defect.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4823 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not really my problem to deal with your education.
Understood. You have major problems with your own.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4825 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.
You really need to take reading comprehension 101, you're pathetic.

That reminds me.
Lides to Wondering: I'll stop reading your posts.
Wondering to lides: No you won't.

BWAHAHAHAHA! You can't stop reading my posts, it would put an end to your education.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#4827 Dec 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to be very educated to see that it's fact. What's your problem?
You are a laugh riot!

“Stop the liberal madness”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#4828 Dec 4, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a laugh riot!
Why hi Mona, what a lovely surprise.

Do you know what a laugh riot is?

"Rachel Maddow’s death spiral, another week of record low ratings"

Rachel Maddow can't quite put a finger on where her former viewers went

Things are not going well for MSNBC. Not for the network in general nor for Rachel Maddow in particular.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rachel-maddows-d...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4829 Dec 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know that? I want proof. You know, even if that were true, it would be a choice. With gays, if you want sex you have no choice.
Just searching "anal sex" will bring up the Wikipedia page with references and all.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex

Do the sexual practices, what happens in a person's bedroom, matter when it comes to marriage?
No, therefore, why did you bring it up?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4830 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Oh look, the one who constantly whines about others using ad hominem attacks is constantly using them himself. What a surprise.
The hypocrite strikes again!

Why do you consider an adult a kid? Do you enjoy living outside of reality where you're "right" and everyone else is "incapable" of proving you wrong?
So far, you've lost every argument that you've participated in.

This is why it's impossible that you're a lawyer, you are too stupid and you lose too much.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#4831 Dec 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know that? I want proof. You know, even if that were true, it would be a choice. With gays, if you want sex you have no choice.
By the way, you didn't quote the entire comment, so here is the first part of it, proving that your opinion of normality is useless and stupid:

"Again, it's abnormal to have red hair, do you refuse marriage to those with red hair? Do you hate them? Do you tell them they have a disorder?"

So, Wonderbread, do you hate gingers?

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 Ireland same-sex marriage 24 min American_Infidel 361
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 1 hr Brian_G 349
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 5,748
News The right therapy for LGBT youth 1 hr HumanSpirit 285
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Brian_G 51,761
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 hr pearl 3,826
News Can Rick Santorum escape his past? 2 hr kuda 36
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr NoahLovesU 21,822
Are the mods fair and balanced? 13 hr Friend of Poof1 842
More from around the web