Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

[Silhouette]

and linked, so we can see it in context....And again, syriously has ignored what I said, and the relevant quote from syriously's LINK! That I used....So syriously ends with another lie, on top of the 4 other distinct lies. I quoted your link syriously, if you were honest you would of included the entire comment with the quote from your link. Instead, syriously is a simple liar.

Yes, Syriusly does that constantly. Don't worry, you'll get used to it. Besides, the sock puppet/troll Syriusly never actually starts topics on other threads her/himself. Syriusly's "job" for which I believe s/he is paid, is to follow around topics on LGBT content and spam significant points the opposition makes into oblivion. You see it all the time. I'll make a point and ..

*then*
*Syriusly*
*separates it into*
*six separate posts*
*replying to each point*
*in single sentences*...

Until viola! The points disappear on a lost page. Then s/he and his socks come in and try to introduce a strawman or a fake flame war to get the thread to be disappeared. You go around the net and try to post opposition to the LGBT agenda. You'll see this same routine everywhere you go. Soros has a lot of money and knows social media is the way you win "wars" with word play...

But how Syriusly posts is a strawman so....yeah...we were discussing how states have a legally-mandated obligation to investigate my reports that children who are contractually bound away for life from even the hope of having either a mother or father (gay marriage) constitutes child abuse.

 

[mdk]

I get your frustration Elektra.

I know, you poor dear. It must be so frustrating that we won't allow you to tear gay families apart and prohibit them from marrying. It must be so hard on you.

 

[Silhouette]

I know, you poor dear. It must be so frustrating that we won't allow you to tear gay families apart and prohibit them from marrying. It must be so hard on you.

"we won't allow". See Elektra? One of the payroll bloggers comes on and admits they are in a group here to do exactly what I just said in my last post. Well done troll "mdk". Getting a wee bit arrogant too I see..and sloppy. What would your employer say if he knew you were letting the cat out of the bag like that?

 

[mdk]

I know, you poor dear. It must be so frustrating that we won't allow you to tear gay families apart and prohibit them from marrying. It must be so hard on you.

"we won't allow". See Elektra? One of the payroll bloggers comes on and admits they are in a group here to do exactly what I just said in my last post. Well done troll "mdk". Getting a wee bit arrogant too I see..and sloppy. What would your employer say if he knew you were letting the cat out of the bag like that?

No, idiot. We as in society won't allow you. Crafting these stupid conspiracies about 'payroll bloggers' doesn't change the fact that you are powerless to stop gays from rasing children and marrying.

Slapping your delusions down is its own reward. lol

 

[Syriusly]

I know, you poor dear. It must be so frustrating that we won't allow you to tear gay families apart and prohibit them from marrying. It must be so hard on you.

"we won't allow". See Elektra? One of the payroll bloggers comes on and admits they are in a group here to do exactly what I just said in my last post. Well done troll "mdk". Getting a wee bit arrogant too I see..and sloppy. What would your employer say if he knew you were letting the cat out of the bag like that?

Silhouette do you support incestuous marriage?

 

[Skylar]

I know, you poor dear. It must be so frustrating that we won't allow you to tear gay families apart and prohibit them from marrying. It must be so hard on you.

"we won't allow". See Elektra? One of the payroll bloggers comes on and admits they are in a group here to do exactly what I just said in my last post. Well done troll "mdk". Getting a wee bit arrogant too I see..and sloppy. What would your employer say if he knew you were letting the cat out of the bag like that?

Oh, joy. Sil's going full conspiracy theorist again.

How long until she starts babbling about how 'gays infiltrated Gallup polling' and how homosexuals control the pope?

 

[Skylar]

and linked, so we can see it in context....And again, syriously has ignored what I said, and the relevant quote from syriously's LINK! That I used....So syriously ends with another lie, on top of the 4 other distinct lies. I quoted your link syriously, if you were honest you would of included the entire comment with the quote from your link. Instead, syriously is a simple liar.

Yes, Syriusly does that constantly. Don't worry, you'll get used to it. Besides, the sock puppet/troll Syriusly never actually starts topics on other threads her/himself. Syriusly's "job" for which I believe s/he is paid, is to follow around topics on LGBT content and spam significant points the opposition makes into oblivion. You see it all the time. I'll make a point and ..

*then*
*Syriusly*
*separates it into*
*six separate posts*
*replying to each point*
*in single sentences*...

Until viola! The points disappear on a lost page. Then s/he and his socks come in and try to introduce a strawman or a fake flame war to get the thread to be disappeared. You go around the net and try to post opposition to the LGBT agenda. You'll see this same routine everywhere you go. Soros has a lot of money and knows social media is the way you win "wars" with word play...

But how Syriusly posts is a strawman so....yeah...we were discussing how states have a legally-mandated obligation to investigate my reports that children who are contractually bound away for life from even the hope of having either a mother or father (gay marriage) constitutes child abuse.

You have 54 threads on this topic, each with dozens if not hundreds of pages and thousands upon thousands of posts of your pseudo-legal gibberish. You have purchased a website dedicated to 'stopping the homosexuals' where you grovel for donations. You created your own messageboard on yuku with yourself as the only participant.....where have 29 more threads with you talking to yourself.

And you're worried a post being pushed onto another page?

Laughing........obsess much?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was opined at the time that the Obergefell ruling was a 'gift' to the GOP, taking the issue of prohibiting gay Americans from marrying of the political radar.

Clearly many in the right have no intent of accepting the Court's gift, instead allowing democrats to use conservatives' bigotry against them this November.

 

[elektra]

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested". You call me a liar when you won't even quote your own source, you have to hack it to state something different and I am the one lying? You spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun flaming my posts, but when it gets down to your link, your article, your source, You are a liar.

Your link, LIAR! http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf page 5/15

A significant number of fathers in the molested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child turned 16 years old.

[/QUOTE]

 

[elektra]

I still can not believe that syriously has to lie and cherry pick syrously's own links. I mean I always knew they lie to make the points they do but I never thought they would be so desperate as to be so blatant.

 

[Skylar]

I still can not believe that syriously has to lie and cherry pick syrously's own links. I mean I always knew they lie to make the points they do but I never thought they would be so desperate as to be so blatant.

Laughing.....you slink back in days later to make the *same* stupid lies?

Your link didn't say a thing about homosexual families being at higher risk. They didn't say a thing about most boys being raped by homosexuals.

You lied your ass off.

 

[elektra]

I still can not believe that syriously has to lie and cherry pick syrously's own links. I mean I always knew they lie to make the points they do but I never thought they would be so desperate as to be so blatant.

Laughing.....you slink back in days later to make the *same* stupid lies?

Your link didn't say a thing about homosexual families being at higher risk. They didn't say a thing about most boys being raped by homosexuals.

You lied your ass off.

I was replying to sryisuly's link you idiot, you have a serious comprehension problem, huh.

It was not my link. But facts and the truth dont work very well for you, huh.

Fatherless families are at a greater rusk of suffering an attack by a oedophile, according to the link given by syriously, lesbian families have no father. The link provided by your girlfreind blows your assertion that a man present increases the risk of pedaphilia. A father absent is bad. Didagree with syriosly, that is who posted the link.

 

[Skylar]

I still can not believe that syriously has to lie and cherry pick syrously's own links. I mean I always knew they lie to make the points they do but I never thought they would be so desperate as to be so blatant.

Laughing.....you slink back in days later to make the *same* stupid lies?

Your link didn't say a thing about homosexual families being at higher risk. They didn't say a thing about most boys being raped by homosexuals.

You lied your ass off.

I was replying to sryisuly's link you idiot, you have a serious comprehension problem, huh.

It was not my link. But facts and the truth dont work very well for you, huh.

Fatherless families are at a greater rusk of suffering an attack by a oedophile, according to the link given by syriously, lesbian families have no father. The link provided by your girlfreind blows your assertion that a man present increases the risk of pedaphilia. A father absent is bad. Didagree with syriosly, that is who posted the link.

And your reply didn't say what you claimed it did. No where does it say that homosexual families are at greater risk.

And nothing you've presented say that most boys are raped by homosexuals.

Try again, liar.

 

[elektra]

I get your frustration Elektra.

No frustration, syriusly had to delete words from he/she's post, from he/she's own link, a blatant lie such as that made my night.

 

[elektra]

I still can not believe that syriously has to lie and cherry pick syrously's own links. I mean I always knew they lie to make the points they do but I never thought they would be so desperate as to be so blatant.

Laughing.....you slink back in days later to make the *same* stupid lies?

Your link didn't say a thing about homosexual families being at higher risk. They didn't say a thing about most boys being raped by homosexuals.

You lied your ass off.

I was replying to sryisuly's link you idiot, you have a serious comprehension problem, huh.

It was not my link. But facts and the truth dont work very well for you, huh.

Fatherless families are at a greater rusk of suffering an attack by a oedophile, according to the link given by syriously, lesbian families have no father. The link provided by your girlfreind blows your assertion that a man present increases the risk of pedaphilia. A father absent is bad. Didagree with syriosly, that is who posted the link.

And your reply didn't say what you claimed it did. No where does it say that homosexual families are at greater risk.

And nothing you've presented say that most boys are raped by homosexuals.

Try again, liar.

Try again, thank you for not quoting and linking my post, everyone can now see you are a liar.

 

[Skylar]

I still can not believe that syriously has to lie and cherry pick syrously's own links. I mean I always knew they lie to make the points they do but I never thought they would be so desperate as to be so blatant.

Laughing.....you slink back in days later to make the *same* stupid lies?

Your link didn't say a thing about homosexual families being at higher risk. They didn't say a thing about most boys being raped by homosexuals.

You lied your ass off.

I was replying to sryisuly's link you idiot, you have a serious comprehension problem, huh.

It was not my link. But facts and the truth dont work very well for you, huh.

Fatherless families are at a greater rusk of suffering an attack by a oedophile, according to the link given by syriously, lesbian families have no father. The link provided by your girlfreind blows your assertion that a man present increases the risk of pedaphilia. A father absent is bad. Didagree with syriosly, that is who posted the link.

And your reply didn't say what you claimed it did. No where does it say that homosexual families are at greater risk.

And nothing you've presented say that most boys are raped by homosexuals.

Try again, liar.

Try again, thank you for not quoting and linking my post, everyone can now see you are a liar.

Laughing....keep running, Lek. Your claims didn't match your citations. There's nothing that says that homosexual families are at greater risk. And there's nothing that says that most boys are raped by gays.

Its just you.....insisting it must be so. And making up 'quotations' that don't exist to support your lies.

You keep running, I'll keep laughing. Deal?

 

[Syriusly]

A significant number of fathers in the mgroup were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old. The fathers themselves tended to be of lower socioeconomic and educational levels than controls,
but this finding was not statistically significant probably
because a substantial amount of data were missing concerning the absentee fathers.
46
What does 'not statistically significant' mean Elektra?
And where does it say anything about 'homosexual families'?

What is significant, is how you hacked your cut and paste to eliminate the word, "molested".E]

How do I put this delicately?

24 hours ago I said I had a problem with editing when I copied and pasted that. I also admitted that I may have attributed the 'statistically significant' part to the wrong part of the statement.

You have since brought this up- what a half dozen times- the exact same thing- despite my response.

So now I can answer distinctly- fuck off.

Because despite your best efforts to derail what Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall actually said- unlike what you claimed- nowhere do they say that the homosexual families put children at higher risk.

Stop your homophobic lies.

 

[Syriusly]

I still can not believe that syriously has to lie and cherry pick syrously's own links. I mean I always knew they lie to make the points they do but I never thought they would be so desperate as to be so blatant.

Laughing.....you slink back in days later to make the *same* stupid lies?

Your link didn't say a thing about homosexual families being at higher risk. They didn't say a thing about most boys being raped by homosexuals.

You lied your ass off.

I was replying to sryisuly's link you idiot, you have a serious comprehension problem, huh.

It was not my link. But facts and the truth dont work very well for you, huh.

Fatherless families are at a greater rusk of suffering an attack by a oedophile, according to the link given by syriously, lesbian families have no father. .

Not once in the article does it say that.

Here let me quote the actual article- nowhere does this say 'higher risk' and indeed Dr. Hall's noted that 'mother's of abused children ....were more likely to be single parents. Which would not include families with two parents- including 2 lesbians.

Pedophiles may target certain types of families when
looking for children to abuse. The study by Bagley et al
46
noted that the parents of children who had been abused by
pedophiles had notable characteristics, such as a lower
overall education and a higher rate of absenteeism from
home. The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old.

More specifically- and what you have always ignored is the danger from men

Men are the offenders in between 88% to 97% of all child molestations.
Girls are their victims between 69% to 91%
They are abused by a family member between 49% and 24% of the time- meaning essentially a male family member.
By a stranger only 3-10% of the time.
The study by Abel and Harlowfound that 68% of “child molesters” had molested a family mem-ber; 30% had molested a stepchild, a foster child, or anadopted child; 19% had molested 1 or more of their biologic children; 18% had molested a niece or nephew; and
5% had molested a grandchild

Which means statistically- any child is safer from child sexual abuse in any family without any men.

Statistically- in order of safety from child sexual molestation the preference would be from safest to least safe:
2 mom's
1 mom
1 mom and 1 dad
2 dad's

Any person who argues that a home with 2 gay dad's is not safe for children is a hypocrite if they don't also argue that kids are safest with two lesbian moms.

 

[elektra]

I still can not believe that syriously has to lie and cherry pick syrously's own links. I mean I always knew they lie to make the points they do but I never thought they would be so desperate as to be so blatant.

Laughing.....you slink back in days later to make the *same* stupid lies?

Your link didn't say a thing about homosexual families being at higher risk. They didn't say a thing about most boys being raped by homosexuals.

You lied your ass off.

I was replying to sryisuly's link you idiot, you have a serious comprehension problem, huh.

It was not my link. But facts and the truth dont work very well for you, huh.

Fatherless families are at a greater rusk of suffering an attack by a oedophile, according to the link given by syriously, lesbian families have no father. .

Not once in the article does it say that.

Here let me quote the actual article- nowhere does this say 'higher risk' and indeed Dr. Hall's noted that 'mother's of abused children ....were more likely to be single parents. Which would not include families with two parents- including 2 lesbians.

Pedophiles may target certain types of families when
looking for children to abuse. The study by Bagley et al
46
noted that the parents of children who had been abused by
pedophiles had notable characteristics, such as a lower
overall education and a higher rate of absenteeism from
home. The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old.

More specifically- and what you have always ignored is the danger from men

View attachment 66594

Men are the offenders in between 88% to 97% of all child molestations.
Girls are their victims between 69% to 91%
They are abused by a family member between 49% and 24% of the time- meaning essentially a male family member.
By a stranger only 3-10% of the time.
The study by Abel and Harlowfound that 68% of “child molesters” had molested a family mem-ber; 30% had molested a stepchild, a foster child, or anadopted child; 19% had molested 1 or more of their biologic children; 18% had molested a niece or nephew; and
5% had molested a grandchild

Which means statistically- any child is safer from child sexual abuse in any family without any men.

Statistically- in order of safety from child sexual molestation the preference would be from safest to least safe:
2 mom's
1 mom
1 mom and 1 dad
2 dad's

Any person who argues that a home with 2 gay dad's is not safe for children is a hypocrite if they don't also argue that kids are safest with two lesbian moms.

It does say it, moron, you are so hung up on your ideology you have no understanding of what you read, AND YOU CAN STOP WITH THE BIG FONTS, YOU WASTE SPACE AND LOOK THE FOOL!

 

[Skylar]

I still can not believe that syriously has to lie and cherry pick syrously's own links. I mean I always knew they lie to make the points they do but I never thought they would be so desperate as to be so blatant.

Laughing.....you slink back in days later to make the *same* stupid lies?

Your link didn't say a thing about homosexual families being at higher risk. They didn't say a thing about most boys being raped by homosexuals.

You lied your ass off.

I was replying to sryisuly's link you idiot, you have a serious comprehension problem, huh.

It was not my link. But facts and the truth dont work very well for you, huh.

Fatherless families are at a greater rusk of suffering an attack by a oedophile, according to the link given by syriously, lesbian families have no father. .

Not once in the article does it say that.

Here let me quote the actual article- nowhere does this say 'higher risk' and indeed Dr. Hall's noted that 'mother's of abused children ....were more likely to be single parents. Which would not include families with two parents- including 2 lesbians.

Pedophiles may target certain types of families when
looking for children to abuse. The study by Bagley et al
46
noted that the parents of children who had been abused by
pedophiles had notable characteristics, such as a lower
overall education and a higher rate of absenteeism from
home. The mothers of abused children had less education
than control group mothers and were more likely to be
single parents. A significant number of fathers in the mo-
lested group were absent for at least 3 years before the child
turned 16 years old.

More specifically- and what you have always ignored is the danger from men

View attachment 66594

Men are the offenders in between 88% to 97% of all child molestations.
Girls are their victims between 69% to 91%
They are abused by a family member between 49% and 24% of the time- meaning essentially a male family member.
By a stranger only 3-10% of the time.
The study by Abel and Harlowfound that 68% of “child molesters” had molested a family mem-ber; 30% had molested a stepchild, a foster child, or anadopted child; 19% had molested 1 or more of their biologic children; 18% had molested a niece or nephew; and
5% had molested a grandchild

Which means statistically- any child is safer from child sexual abuse in any family without any men.

Statistically- in order of safety from child sexual molestation the preference would be from safest to least safe:
2 mom's
1 mom
1 mom and 1 dad
2 dad's

Any person who argues that a home with 2 gay dad's is not safe for children is a hypocrite if they don't also argue that kids are safest with two lesbian moms.

It does say it, moron, you so hung up on your ideology you have no understanding of what you read, AND YOU CAN STOP WITH THE BIG FONTS, YOU WASTE SPACE AND LOOK THE FOOL!

I can read the source perfectly well. It doesn't say a thing about homosexual families being at greater risk. And it doesn't say a thing about most boys being raped by homosexuals.

Try again. This time with a little more evidence and a little less lying.