Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

Oct 9, 2012 Full story: www.wisconsingazette.com 5,439

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.

Full Story

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5280 Dec 9, 2012
NoQ wrote:
That's where you wrong shiteater, you're right in one respect though, I don't bother trying to prove anything to idiots anymore. I used to present facts and arguments, but to no avail. You freaks would just say the site or evidence wasn't credible according to the respective of HO:MOS, or twist or manipulate the facts or just lie or pretend it wasn't there at all. I got tired of going in circles with you perverts, day after day, the same shit. So if you ASSTROLLS want to continue the same boring shit day after day, be my guest, I'm not playing anymore.
No Clue, you couldn't present a factually supported, thoughtful, logical, or rational argument if you tried.

The reality is that the Constitution requires states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law, homosexuals are persons, marriage is a protection of the law, and you lack the ability to indicate any legitimate state interest served by denying such equal protection for same sex couples to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Feel free to let fly with another angst filled adolescent rant.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5281 Dec 9, 2012
Lacez wrote:
I see this is a dead thread...
I'm off, all there is is a bunch of trolls, including the ever idiotic Wonderbread.
Besides, Paul is old news.
The average IQ of the posters in this thread just went up!
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#5282 Dec 9, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The average IQ of the posters in this thread just went up!
Except for you...you don't have an IQ. The gays infiltrated the IQ tests in 1973 so IQs are gay, and that automatically means you don't want any of it.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#5284 Dec 9, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Only One Question Smart A$$, then why is it you Freaks are still in the dark ages compared to us normal people? Because you freaks are mentally unbalanced perverted individuals that is a product of birth defects. That's why. LMFAO
oh look its NoIQ ... stfu dumbazz

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5285 Dec 9, 2012
NoQ wrote:
Only One Question Smart A$$, then why is it you Freaks are still in the dark ages compared to us normal people? Because you freaks are mentally unbalanced perverted individuals that is a product of birth defects. That's why. LMFAO
Simple multi-part answer.

1. Homosexuals are not in the dark ages.
2. You are not normal.
3. You cannot support any of the allegations you have just made with fact.

Once again, it appears that all you have to offer is sophomoric and adolescent name calling.

Grow up.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#5286 Dec 9, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple multi-part answer.
1. Homosexuals are not in the dark ages.
2. You are not normal.
3. You cannot support any of the allegations you have just made with fact.
Once again, it appears that all you have to offer is sophomoric and adolescent name calling.
Grow up.
I'm starting to feel dumber every time I read one of NoIQ's posts. The Dark Ages? mkay..........
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#5287 Dec 9, 2012
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>oh look its NoIQ ... stfu dumbazz
hahahahaahahahahhaha

How ya doing, sweetie?

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#5290 Dec 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>hahahahaahahahahhaha
How ya doing, sweetie?
doing good sweetie... how about you

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#5292 Dec 9, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
No need even addressing you cause you don't even have control of yourself anymore. HaHaHaHa. Lets a pimp tell the BORE what to do anymore. LMFAO
how's that trailer closet case

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#5293 Dec 9, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
She's not, her TransQueer son is confused, like you, and the BORE has a pimp telling her what she can and can't do anymore. So Funny. LMFAO
oh sorry you mean my soon to be husband.... maybe someday someone will love you and you can get married... not likely tho

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#5295 Dec 9, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
So funny, the nasty A$$ perverted Wh_ore thinks someone can actually LOVE HER. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. Trailer Trash, you have a rude awakening coming. LMFAO
oh what a shame he has already bought the three corot diamond ring.... oh so sad for you

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5296 Dec 9, 2012
Still waiting for your to back up you BS with some cold hard fact NoClue, or are you tacitly admitting that your claims are utterly without rational foundation?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#5297 Dec 9, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
This coming from TransQueer that has a dick and uses a womans name!!!!!! Can't even figure out what it wants to be. You dam sure, can't be too smart. LMFAO
I guess NoQ is your real name, too, eh?
Guess you can't figure out what you want to be. Your name is NoQ but you hang out with gay people all day every day. Dude. I'm retired and gay. What's your excuse? Harassing us won't make your same sex fantasies go away. They are not going to go away. You'd better learn to deal with them in a constructive way.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#5299 Dec 9, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Two things:
1. "Cpeter" is fictional just like "Curteese" and "Wondering" are.
2. "Cpeter" can be, and has been, as offensive as anyone else.
If you find someone to be offensive, don't read it.
Oh, you mean like someone telling you what a dirty whore your mother is? Hey, don't read it.

I heard your dad traded your mother in for an outhouse, the hole was smaller and smelled better.

What's the difference between a 10 year old boy and a classic car? Both are locked in your dad's garage.

Hey, don't READ it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5307 Dec 9, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry CSer, I've never had a register account. Maybe because you fking Queers run these threads. If you don't agree with you Fa$$ots or say something that makes you mad, then they ban you. You see Pervert, they ain't smart enough to ban me. They try, all the time. As you see I have the same name all the time, and I'm still here. The most they accomplish is getting my post deleted. If I want something on there that bad, I just repost it. Tears them up cause they can't control me. LMFAO
Wow, way to be a clueless twit, and classless troll.

Still waiting for you to offer one fact that supports your inept assertions.

Personally, I think you lack the mental capacity to offer a logical, rational and factually supported argument. Your adolescent rats more than speak for your character, or lack thereof.

Congratulations, you are a troll, nit-wit, and moron I'm not sure why you hate the constitution, but it is readily apparent that you so.
KiMare the monster fraud

Italy

#5311 Dec 9, 2012
sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies, the usual from gay men, attempting to bring heterosexuals into the corral with them and AIDS.
No one believes it, however.
By no one you mean you.
You'll believe it when your heterosexual friend, friend of a friend, family member, or yourself is asked for a HIV test or is diagnosed with HIV.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5312 Dec 9, 2012
Are you atually saying that heteros don't get AIDS?
sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies, the usual from gay men, attempting to bring heterosexuals into the corral with them and AIDS.
No one believes it, however.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#5313 Dec 10, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I am at least 12, 12 times smarter than you are.
Arrested development?

There's no fool like an old fool.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#5314 Dec 10, 2012
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair.. I apologize. I did come into this conversation late. I tried going back through just now to find the answer that you provided.... I read about 5 pages worth of comments and found one about you saying you gave 2 answers to his question on the states interest... I decided that reading through thousands of comments just to find 1 answer would be a waste of time. I know that repeating yourself is never a fun thing to do but being I am a new person in this conversation, would you mind sharing the answer again?
no need to apologize, but I appreciate your politeness. I hope you can maintain it with this crowd!

"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 S360mothers, 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"

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/faculty_franke/G...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#5315 Dec 10, 2012
Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:
<quoted text>
FUNNY! Especially coming for an ignorant twit who has yet to post an origional thought or interesting comment.
this is not funny or make a point...
plus, who cares what you think?

a fail within a fail..
but thanks for playing...

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
Ukip candidate: 'Gay donkey tried to rape my ho... 3 min Belle Sexton 55
What Would You Like Two Do With NE Jade 4 min Winchester 8
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 6 min NorCal Native 5,300
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 6 min Frankie Rizzo 68,613
Nickelodeon cartoon reveals lesbian characters 10 min Belle Sexton 9
Religious freedom bill coming to Indiana 13 min Belle Sexton 9
Prison Sex, Nude Selfies, Science, and Scandals... 14 min Belle Sexton 2
Supreme Court Has 'Tipped Its Hand' In Favor Of... 17 min NorCal Native 37
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr Newt G s Next Wife 3,125
More from around the web