Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

[Silhouette]

The good thing is that couples in America can get married, regardless of the gender of their spouse, and regardless of Silhouette's hateful opposition.

You mean "the good thing is that couples regardless of their sexual orientation can get married in America". You're aware there are more than just your sexual orientation I take it? Should the majority be able to regulate the sexual freedoms of a consenting-adult minority Syriusly? Either in criminal or family law?

And if "yes" do you hate the children of those sexual orientations left out in the cold? Or do you object because "c'mon...we need to draw the line somewhere because of how those marriages might affect the children involved..."?

 

[Syriusly]

The good thing is that couples in America can get married, regardless of the gender of their spouse, and regardless of Silhouette's hateful opposition.

You mean "the good thing is that couples regardless

I mean I think it is wonderful that couples can legally marry in all 50 states regardless of the gender of their spouse and regardless of your animosity towards homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you aware yet that I'm ignoring you mdk?

LOL........oh noes Silhouette is ignoring you!

Not as if Silhouette actually comprehends what anyone posts anyways.

The point of responding to a Silhouette post is to show how ridiculous, delusional and hateful it is.

No one has any expectation that Silhouette will suddenly stop hating gays because of an insight we provide.

 

[Silhouette]

The good thing is that couples in America can get married, regardless of the gender of their spouse, and regardless of Silhouette's hateful opposition.

You mean "the good thing is that couples regardless

I mean I think it is wonderful that couples can legally marry in all 50 states regardless of the gender of their spouse and regardless of your animosity towards homosexuals.

No, I said regardless of their sexual orientation. Nice attempt at an escape. I notice how you cut off the part about "of their sexual orientation"...

Here's the full statement again in context:

You mean "the good thing is that couples regardless of their sexual orientation can get married in America". You're aware there are more than just your sexual orientation I take it? Should the majority be able to regulate the sexual freedoms of a consenting-adult minority Syriusly? Either in criminal or family law?

And if "yes" do you hate the children of those sexual orientations left out in the cold? Or do you object because "c'mon...we need to draw the line somewhere because of how those marriages might affect the children involved..."?

 

[mdk]

Are you aware yet that I'm ignoring you mdk?

I hope I can pick up the shattered remains of my life and move on. lol

Ignoring inconvenient facts has always been your modus operandi. Why should now be any different?

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, just because someone disagrees with your defense mechanisms does not make that disagreement "hateful, ridiculous or delusional". Though coming from your obviously unstable position, it might seem that way.

 

[Syriusly]

The good thing is that couples in America can get married, regardless of the gender of their spouse, and regardless of Silhouette's hateful opposition.

You mean "the good thing is that couples regardless

I mean I think it is wonderful that couples can legally marry in all 50 states regardless of the gender of their spouse and regardless of your animosity towards homosexuals.

No, I said regardless of their sexual orientation. Nice attempt at an escape. I notice how you cut off the part about "of their sexual orientation"...

No- you told me what I meant- and I was clarifying for you- nice attempt to do your usual lie.

I mean I think it is wonderful that couples can legally marry in all 50 states regardless of the gender of their spouse and regardless of your animosity towards homosexuals.

That is what I mean. You can speak about what you mean- all of your delusions and lies and attempts to harm the children of gay couples.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, just because someone disagrees with your defense mechanisms does not make that disagreement "hateful, ridiculous or delusional". Though coming from your obviously unstable position, it might seem that way.

Absolutely- just because someone disagrees with me does not make that person 'hateful, ridiculous or delusional.

But pointing out that a poster has a many years history of posting hateful, ridiculous and/or delusional posts is just being honest.

Because that is what you have done for years- from your imaginary legal positions to your fantasies about gays blackmailing the Pope- to you labeling 'mass murderers' gay because of what the voices in your head tell you to you advocating against gay marriage because you know it will harm any children being raised by them.

You have a proven track record of lies, delusional claims and hateful content.

 

[mdk]

Syriusly, just because someone disagrees with your defense mechanisms does not make that disagreement "hateful, ridiculous or delusional". Though coming from your obviously unstable position, it might seem that way.

You were hateful, ridiculous, and, delusional long before Syriusly joined this forum.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Syriusly, just because someone disagrees with your defense mechanisms does not make that disagreement "hateful, ridiculous or delusional". Though coming from your obviously unstable position, it might seem that way.

You were hateful, ridiculous, and, delusional long before Syriusly joined this forum.

According to join dates. 15 months - at least.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The good thing is that couples in America can get married, regardless of the gender of their spouse, and regardless of Silhouette's hateful opposition.

You mean "the good thing is that couples regardless

I mean I think it is wonderful that couples can legally marry in all 50 states regardless of the gender of their spouse and regardless of your animosity towards homosexuals.

No, I said regardless of their sexual orientation. Nice attempt at an escape. I notice how you cut off the part about "of their sexual orientation"...

Here's the full statement again in context:

You mean "the good thing is that couples regardless of their sexual orientation can get married in America". You're aware there are more than just your sexual orientation I take it? Should the majority be able to regulate the sexual freedoms of a consenting-adult minority Syriusly? Either in criminal or family law?

And if "yes" do you hate the children of those sexual orientations left out in the cold? Or do you object because "c'mon...we need to draw the line somewhere because of how those marriages might affect the children involved..."?

********

So syriusly..getting back on topic...should the majority be able to regulate any sexual freedoms of a minority?...you didn't say...And if "yes"..which ones & why?.

 

[Syriusly]

The good thing is that couples in America can get married, regardless of the gender of their spouse, and regardless of Silhouette's hateful opposition.

You mean "the good thing is that couples regardless

I mean I think it is wonderful that couples can legally marry in all 50 states regardless of the gender of their spouse and regardless of your animosity towards homosexuals.

No, I said regardless of their sexual orientation. .

Well it is always about 'sexual orientation to you- because you have gay on the brain.

Meanwhile- once again- I mean I think it is wonderful that couples can legally marry in all 50 states regardless of the gender of their spouse and regardless of your animosity towards homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, just because someone disagrees with your defense mechanisms does not make that disagreement "hateful, ridiculous or delusional". Though coming from your obviously unstable position, it might seem that way.

You were hateful, ridiculous, and, delusional long before Syriusly joined this forum.

According to join dates. 15 months - at least.


>>>>

Silhouette was spinning her lies over at Politicalforum long before she came here.

She left there when it became harder for her to lie.

 

[Silhouette]

I notice in the last two posts you didn't answer my question.

Should the majority be able to regulate the sexual freedoms of a consenting-adult minority Syriusly?...And if "yes" do you hate the children of those sexual orientations left out in the cold? Or do you object because "c'mon...we need to draw the line somewhere because of how those marriages might affect the children involved..."?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Silhouette was spinning her lies over at Politicalforum long before she came here.

She left there when it became harder for her to lie.

Uhhhh...

Wait there is a debate forum I haven't signed up for.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette was spinning her lies over at Politicalforum long before she came here.

She left there when it became harder for her to lie.

Uhhhh...

Wait there is a debate forum I haven't signed up for.


>>>>

This one is better.

PF is just kind of clunky- for example posting photo's is far too much of pain. And it is quite a bit more moderated than here.

 

[Syriusly]

I notice in the last two posts you didn't answer my question.

I am always amused when you post to yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

The references to internet stalking are amusing and serve as temporary relief for you I'm sure. Meanwhile...
*****
I notice in the last two posts you didn't answer my question.

Should the majority be able to regulate the sexual freedoms of a consenting-adult minority Syriusly?...And if "yes" do you hate the children of those sexual orientations left out in the cold? Or do you object because "c'mon...we need to draw the line somewhere because of how those marriages might affect the children involved..."?

 

[Silhouette]

The conspicuous silence speaks louder than words. So I'll talk about that instead. The bottom line is you can't talk about how Obergefell (gay marriage) was inspired ("for the sake of the kids!") while at the same time talk about how other kids don't need the benefits of marriage from other sexual orientations, can you? Well, not with a straight face anyway..

And we know Obergefell ultimately used the excuse of "for the kids!" when its ratification meant that the chief benefit that kids had always derived from marriage (mother and father both; it was created to remedy single parenthood) indeed was eliminated by Obergefell as a new contractual term eliminating "the benefits of marriage" for kids altogether in that contract.

These things you folks wish no one was talking about. But it's not every day children are forcibly removed from either a mother or father, for life, as a new legal mandate. So, we're going to talk about it. And hopefully Judge Moore will too.

 

[Montrovant]

The conspicuous silence speaks louder than words. So I'll talk about that instead. The bottom line is you can't talk about how Obergefell (gay marriage) was inspired ("for the sake of the kids!") while at the same time talk about how other kids don't need the benefits of marriage from other sexual orientations, can you? Well, not with a straight face anyway..

And we know Obergefell ultimately used the excuse of "for the kids!" when its ratification meant that the chief benefit that kids had always derived from marriage (mother and father both; it was created to remedy single parenthood) indeed was eliminated by Obergefell as a new contractual term eliminating "the benefits of marriage" for kids altogether in that contract.

These things you folks wish no one was talking about. But it's not every day children are forcibly removed from either a mother or father, for life, as a new legal mandate. So, we're going to talk about it. And hopefully Judge Moore will too.

How are the children forcibly removed from a mother or father for life in same sex marriage? Would the parents of those children magically be opposite sex if they weren't married?

Everything you said in that post was pretty much untrue.