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.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5344 Dec 10, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I have another one for ya:
If Jane posts to Topix 8 hours a day, how many billable hours did he have last month? As if..........
its not the right question.
I was lucky enough early in my career to not be a slave to the billable hour..

so the REAkl question is... how many people did I help today?
And the answer for today is three.

HOW ABOUT YOU?

reality is fun isn't it?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5345 Dec 10, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think so, Mary. You'd pop a woody just having the plethysmograph strapped on. Just TRY to hide your true feelings from a penis lie detector. Go ahead. Volunteer. Just like the homophobes in the study did. 4 out of 5 were secretly gay. I'll take the bet that you are too, ANY DAY.
Look at this..
can anyone of you guys ever really critique any other poster while letting Mona be like this without comment?
if so, consistency is clearly not your virtue.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5346 Dec 10, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what you said, moron.
"I'm HIV" is what you said.
Nope. He said "HIV-" Pay attention.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5347 Dec 10, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you Freaks like to go by womens names, does it make you feel more feminine that you already are???
Feel feminine? Huh? I'm male...a gay male. Don't want to be a woman, never did. I would miss my enormous penis too much.

Mona Lott is a joke name. I love to watch how it makes you 'phobes go bat-shit crazy, because everything must be neatly pigeon holed in your world or you freak out. But if it makes you so confused, I'll start posting as Big Dick, if you like (I know you do... it's all you think about).
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5348 Dec 10, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>

Mona Lott is a joke name. I love to watch how it makes you 'phobes go bat-shit crazy, because everything must be neatly pigeon holed in your world or you freak out.
Funny, Mona went bat-shite over my using a female name..

Clearly he will say anything....
as all frauds do.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5349 Dec 10, 2012
Poor Jane. Thinking what the legislature "could" do is actually more important than what they actually do. And what did the legislature actually do? They ignored all of Jane's "coulds".........

SCOTUS "could" rule like Jane wants them to, but they aren't stupid. They are REAL lawyers.

Vermont "could" have kept CUs but they actually granted marriage to gays. Jane still hasn't gotten over that insult. I wonder what will happen to the three clients he told to get a CU? They "could" sue him, but none of it really happened anyway. A fake lawyer also has fake clients. I guess he forgets about when he bragged about having a "ton" of billable hours. As if....
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5350 Dec 10, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Poor Jane. Thinking what the legislature "could" do is actually more important than what they actually do. And what did the legislature actually do? They ignored all of Jane's "coulds".........
SCOTUS "could" rule like Jane wants them to, but they aren't stupid. They are REAL lawyers.
Vermont "could" have kept CUs but they actually granted marriage to gays. Jane still hasn't gotten over that insult. I wonder what will happen to the three clients he told to get a CU? They "could" sue him, but none of it really happened anyway. A fake lawyer also has fake clients. I guess he forgets about when he bragged about having a "ton" of billable hours. As if....
Way to seize on one word and make it into NONSENSE..

anyone is free to read and see what a liar Mona is...
"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."

the court was merely saying that the legislature has a rational basis, the rest is stupid word games that Mona uses to pretend he is smart and try to bully people...

and then comes the attempts to bully...

in the end even gay lawyers agree with me...

"E.J. Graff, writing in the gay and lesbian news magazine The Advocate, summed it up this way in September: "If the court does take up Perry, be afraid, be very afraid." She continues:
Almost no one believes the Supreme Court is ready to get out ahead of American opinion on the question at Perry's heart: Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution? Maybe the Supremes would be ready to say this in 10 years, after LGBT forces have repealed most of the state [bans], replacing them with marriage equality in all but a handful of Southern states. But not yet."

As usual MONA IS A FRAUD.
and boring too...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5351 Dec 10, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll start posting as Big Dick,
as long as you mean your attitude, fine.

but if you actually had one, you would not hide your posts from me ....
and you wouldn't feel the clear urge you have to truly and demean other people..

You aren't fooling anyone...
we already know...
you are a fraud that acts like a big d!ck.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5352 Dec 10, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
lol
That one will keep Jane estimating what the trains "could" do.
you do get that you are the idiot who is guessing what I will do...

what a literal loser you are!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#5354 Dec 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
This is stupid. It's not like it's an either/or situation. Allowing gay marriage won't stop straight couples from getting married.
Rose's Law...
Jane Dough wrote:
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.
People marry for all sorts of reasons. Straight couples who can't or don't want to reproduce marry all the time. It's not as if they can only print out a limited number of marriage licensees.
Jane Dough wrote:
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.
Again, stupid. Allowing gay marriage won't stop straight couples from getting married and breeding.
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.

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...
Again, Rose's Law.
No matter how you feel about gay couples raising children, gay marriage is a separate issues.
Gay couples can marry and not raise kids, or raise kids and not marry.
In fact, if a person were really concerned about kids, and not just using them to try to stir up emotion, the person would ask, "How does a child being raised by a gay couple benefit from the couple not being able to marry?"
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5355 Dec 10, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Mona, the TransQueer, always on the defense cause of its gender. The only big penis you have is the one that gets rammed up your A$$ by another Fa$$ot. Considering you enjoy Feces & Semen so much, it's not surprising that you would play every part Imaginable to be in on all the action. Post as Shiteater for all I care, Fa$$ot. You're still the same Nasty A$$ Filthy Perverted Fa$$ot no matter what name you post under.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm a top. Does that interrupt your little beat-off fantasy, closet boy?
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5356 Dec 10, 2012
could, could, could
The legislature "could" eat nickels and shit dimes.
What did the legislature actually do?
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5357 Dec 10, 2012
Oh hell. Jane missed my job reference AGAIN. This makes four times I told her I worked for GE. She whines incessantly about it until I tell her, then she ignores it.

I "could" have been a movie star. Jane "could" have gone to law school. As if...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5358 Dec 10, 2012
Trick question...jane has never had a client he could bill.
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I have another one for ya:
If Jane posts to Topix 8 hours a day, how many billable hours did he have last month? As if..........

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5359 Dec 10, 2012
With your grasp of the law? The obvious answer is zero. With your counsel, a jaywalker get lethal injection.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its not the right question.
I was lucky enough early in my career to not be a slave to the billable hour..
so the REAkl question is... how many people did I help today?
And the answer for today is three.
HOW ABOUT YOU?
reality is fun isn't it?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5363 Dec 10, 2012
sugarfoot7 wrote:
From PBS:
"DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, there's a big disparity in this country, Ray. There's -- 12 percent of the American population is African-American. And of the new infections, close to 50 percent of them are among African-Americans.
Sadly, among African-Americans who are gay or bisexual men, they're still the leading proportion, if you look at the slice of the pie of people that are getting infected. There has been less among injection drug uses, but an increase among heterosexual transmissibility, which accounts for the increasing percentage among women in the United States.
But, still, men who have sex with men is still the largest fraction of the individuals who are -- get newly infected. And there's a great disparity racially in that, with African-Americans bearing the brunt of the burden."
I'm not worried at all.
Famous last words. While female to male transmission is less likely, it still happens and the likelihood only increases with the number of women who are infected. If there's any risk of infection in what you are doing, use common sense, use protection.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#5364 Dec 11, 2012
sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm saying it's highly unlikely my white ass will ever get it from sex with a straight white female.
It HAS happened. I used to volunteer at an HIV food and support distribution. Not all of our client were gay, in fact, it was about 30 percent heteros, men and women.

One nice guy, I'm sorry, there were so many, I can't recall his name, he was heterosexual and caught HIV from a woman. He eventually died and one of my best memories was him eating the spaghetti I brought in for him one day. He loved it.

Don't be so arrogant. Hubris has brought down bigger than you before this time.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#5365 Dec 11, 2012
sugarfoot7 wrote:
From PBS:
"DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, there's a big disparity in this country, Ray. There's -- 12 percent of the American population is African-American. And of the new infections, close to 50 percent of them are among African-Americans.
Sadly, among African-Americans who are gay or bisexual men, they're still the leading proportion, if you look at the slice of the pie of people that are getting infected. There has been less among injection drug uses, but an increase among heterosexual transmissibility, which accounts for the increasing percentage among women in the United States.
But, still, men who have sex with men is still the largest fraction of the individuals who are -- get newly infected. And there's a great disparity racially in that, with African-Americans bearing the brunt of the burden."
I'm not worried at all.
Then you are a fool.

If you are NOT in a 100% monogamous relationship, you better start thinking more realistically.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5366 Dec 11, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel feminine? Huh? I'm male...a gay male. Don't want to be a woman, never did.
Effeminate gay males -
Carson Kressley
Tim Gunn
Jesse Tyler Ferguson
Jim Parsons
Sean Hayes
etc.

You may never have wanted to be a woman and, most likely, you never wanted to be gay either.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5367 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Is same sex marriage allowed in New York?

Did 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.”

It did it decide upon equality. I love it when gay marriage opponents cite this decision, which has been overturned by legislation, it proves concretely that they aren’t so bright.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min flack 1,522,460
News Trump team rolls out massive tax cut package 4 min kuda 4
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Trump Failures 265,278
News Will Islam Inherit the Earth? 6 min Rabbeen Al Jihad 189
News Sessions' lies 9 min American Independent 30
Civilized countries, boycott the usa 13 min Useless old man 1
News Battery Power Gives Boost to Renewables 30 min Patriot AKA Bozo 138
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 1 hr spud 337
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr replaytime 221,259
News White House refuses to hand over documents to F... 3 hr Ms Sassy 56
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr Spencer 240,352
More from around the web