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

[Silhouette]

Yes, because "I'm wrong" that we could find a panel of legal experts to testify that some men are sexually oriented towards sex with multiple women.
..

Is that what the voices in your head told you today?

No, it's what everyone knows to be irrefutable, observable and documented fact. Those voices are in your head dear if you think some men aren't sexually oriented towards multiple women...

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, because "I'm wrong" that we could find a panel of legal experts to testify that some men are sexually oriented towards sex with multiple women.
..

Is that what the voices in your head told you today?

No, it's what everyone knows to be irrefutable, observable and documented fact. Those voices are in your head dear if you think some men aren't sexually oriented towards multiple women...

Something you could do in the future is "irrefutable, observable and documented fact"?

I wonder, have you ever met any men who are sexually oriented toward multiple women? That would mean that they are not sexually attracted toward any single woman, only multiple women.

Such men might exist, but I'm guessing they are exceedingly rare.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, because "I'm wrong" that we could find a panel of legal experts to testify that some men are sexually oriented towards sex with multiple women.
..

Is that what the voices in your head told you today?

No, it's what everyone knows to be irrefutable, observable and documented fact. Those voices are in your head dear if you think some men aren't sexually oriented towards multiple women...

Something you could do in the future is "irrefutable, observable and documented fact"? ...I wonder, have you ever met any men who are sexually oriented toward multiple women? That would mean that they are not sexually attracted toward any single woman, only multiple women.

Such men might exist, but I'm guessing they are exceedingly rare.

You mean "sexually attracted"? So you're saying "men who are sexually attracted to more than one woman are exceedingly rare".

Monty, remember, you're "the credibility guy" on your team. Leave the complete and utter piles of total bullshit up to mdk and Syriusly. Keep to your role, OK?

Since men are attracted to multiple women sexually, it is a sexual orientation. Even if it is only one or two men in the country, as Montrovant asserts Just one is all you need to allow him rights to marry his love objects using Obergefell's "no state can discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation".

Or was it "anyone"? Or did the Court leave it up to states that *some* sexual orientations were OK to discriminate against when it comes to marriage; but not others? The bullshit is about to hit the fan. Take cover.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, because "I'm wrong" that we could find a panel of legal experts to testify that some men are sexually oriented towards sex with multiple women.
..

Is that what the voices in your head told you today?

No, it's what everyone knows to be irrefutable, observable and documented fact. Those voices are in your head dear if you think some men aren't sexually oriented towards multiple women...

Something you could do in the future is "irrefutable, observable and documented fact"? ...I wonder, have you ever met any men who are sexually oriented toward multiple women? That would mean that they are not sexually attracted toward any single woman, only multiple women.

Such men might exist, but I'm guessing they are exceedingly rare.

You mean "sexually attracted"? So you're saying "men who are sexually attracted to more than one woman are exceedingly rare".

Monty, remember, you're "the credibility guy" on your team. Leave the complete and utter piles of total bullshit up to mdk and Syriusly. Keep to your role, OK?

Since men are attracted to multiple women sexually, it is a sexual orientation. Even if it is only one or two men in the country, as Montrovant asserts Just one is all you need to allow him rights to marry his love objects using Obergefell's "no state can discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation".

Or was it "anyone"? Or did the Court leave it up to states that *some* sexual orientations were OK to discriminate against when it comes to marriage; but not others? The bullshit is about to hit the fan. Take cover.

No, you nitwit. I'm saying that men who are only sexually attracted to multiple women are probably rare. In other words, if they see one woman, they find no attraction. If you want to claim polygamy is a sexual orientation, then a person who had an orientation of polygamy would not be attracted to a single partner. Of course, you might also have to deal with the question of whether monogamy is a sexual orientation, but I'm sure you'll just ignore that.

The point was that you are claiming an irrefutable, observable and documented fact without providing any observable, documented evidence. In fact, you are the only person I have ever seen or heard claim polygamy to be a sexual orientation. Even if a multiple partner orientation exists, it is not polygamy, as that word means multiple spouses. Of course, you've been shown multiple sources for the definition of polygamy and ignored them.

You do seem to ignore just about everything that contradicts your anti-gay narrative, don't you?

 

[Silhouette]

No, you nitwit. I'm saying that men who are only sexually attracted to multiple women are probably rare. In other words, if they see one woman, they find no attraction. If you want to claim polygamy is a sexual orientation, then a person who had an orientation of polygamy would not be attracted to a single partner....

Playing word games.. OK. I'll play.

So if you use an anus as an artificial vagina, does that mean you are not gay? And if a lesbian uses a dildo or a strapon, does that mean she or her partner are not gay? Let's just put it this way. If your "sexual orientation" male members can use an anus as an artificial vagina and its female members crave dildos and strapon dicks, it is as legitimate to call theirs a sexual orientation "homosexual", as it is to call a man craving sex with multiple women a polyamorous-orientation.


So now in the interest of fair play, we've found them both to be sexual orientations, Obergefell applies equally to both of them; or any other sexual orientation that likes to legitimately or illegitimately label itself as such.

 

[Montrovant]

No, you nitwit. I'm saying that men who are only sexually attracted to multiple women are probably rare. In other words, if they see one woman, they find no attraction. If you want to claim polygamy is a sexual orientation, then a person who had an orientation of polygamy would not be attracted to a single partner....

Playing word games.. OK. I'll play.

So if you use an anus as an artificial vagina, does that mean you are not gay? And if a lesbian uses a dildo or a strapon, does that mean she or her partner are not gay? Let's just put it this way. If your "sexual orientation" male members can use an anus as an artificial vagina and its female members crave dildos and strapon dicks, it is as legitimate to call theirs a sexual orientation "homosexual", as it is to call a man craving sex with multiple women a polyamorous-orientation.


So now in the interest of fair play, we've found them both to be sexual orientations, Obergefell applies equally to both of them; or any other sexual orientation that likes to legitimately or illegitimately label itself as such.

As usual, it's clear you don't understand what the hell you are talking about.

Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual acts. Orientation is about who you are sexually attracted to, not what you do with that person. It is sometimes defined as only being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (with asexuality being a lack of orientation). It might, perhaps, be expanded to include things like transgendered people, but it is not about what you are doing with whomever you find attractive. Having anal sex is not a requirement of homosexuality, as you so often seem to indicate.

Let's put it another way. If a man has anal sex with a woman, does it make him gay? Of course not. Yet, as you put it, he would be 'using an anus as an artificial vagina'. That has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. If the man is only sexually attracted to women, whatever acts he might perform with them, he is heterosexual. If a lesbian woman uses a strap-on, does it make her heterosexual or bisexual? No. Who she is sexually attracted to is what determines that, not what acts she performs with that person.

Polygamy and polyamory are about the number of people involved in relationships. They are not sexual orientations, however many times you claim they are because you say so.

 

[Silhouette]

No, you nitwit. I'm saying that men who are only sexually attracted to multiple women are probably rare. In other words, if they see one woman, they find no attraction. If you want to claim polygamy is a sexual orientation, then a person who had an orientation of polygamy would not be attracted to a single partner....

Playing word games.. OK. I'll play.,,,So if you use an anus as an artificial vagina, does that mean you are not gay? And if a lesbian uses a dildo or a strapon, does that mean she or her partner are not gay? Let's just put it this way. If your "sexual orientation" male members can use an anus as an artificial vagina and its female members crave dildos and strapon dicks, it is as legitimate to call theirs a sexual orientation "homosexual", as it is to call a man craving sex with multiple women a polyamorous-orientation....So now in the interest of fair play, we've found them both to be sexual orientations, Obergefell applies equally to both of them; or any other sexual orientation that likes to legitimately or illegitimately label itself as such.

As usual, it's clear you don't understand what the hell you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure you do know what I'm talking about. If a hetero dude was asking his girlfriend to wear men's clothes and do him in the ass with a strapon dildo on a regular basis....I'm pretty sure your cult would know exactly what I'm talking about. CLOSETED issues. In other words a gray area as to a solid sexual orientation. So your assertion is that "homosexuals deserve a monopoly on the phrase "sexual orientation". And you go to great lengths to disqualify others based on this or that nitpicking detail that supposedly claims they "don't quite measure up".

Meanwhile "gays" and "lesbians" don't quite measure up either. So if one illegitimately claims "sexual orientation!!" by self-description, what makes it more legally binding than a guy claiming his natural sexual attraction to more than one woman at a time; and his lifestyle born from that (his "intimate choice-Obergefell 2015)? The answer is it doesn't. They are both equally viable as "solid sexual orientations"....and "intimate choices"..

So, having established that, how will your ilk suddenly become Emily Post and deny polygamy? Because "it's icky"? Because it's 'bad for the kids involved!'....? (Hint, you can't. Obergefell has already made it legal for them to marry. Either that or if states can disqualify some sexual orientations, they can disqualify them all...)

*********

(Below) STUMBLING VV

 

[Montrovant]

No, you nitwit. I'm saying that men who are only sexually attracted to multiple women are probably rare. In other words, if they see one woman, they find no attraction. If you want to claim polygamy is a sexual orientation, then a person who had an orientation of polygamy would not be attracted to a single partner....

Playing word games.. OK. I'll play.,,,So if you use an anus as an artificial vagina, does that mean you are not gay? And if a lesbian uses a dildo or a strapon, does that mean she or her partner are not gay? Let's just put it this way. If your "sexual orientation" male members can use an anus as an artificial vagina and its female members crave dildos and strapon dicks, it is as legitimate to call theirs a sexual orientation "homosexual", as it is to call a man craving sex with multiple women a polyamorous-orientation....So now in the interest of fair play, we've found them both to be sexual orientations, Obergefell applies equally to both of them; or any other sexual orientation that likes to legitimately or illegitimately label itself as such.

As usual, it's clear you don't understand what the hell you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure you do know what I'm talking about. If a hetero dude was asking his girlfriend to wear men's clothes and do him in the ass with a strapon dildo on a regular basis....I'm pretty sure your cult would know exactly what I'm talking about. CLOSETED issues. In other words a gray area as to a solid sexual orientation. So your assertion is that "homosexuals deserve a monopoly on the phrase "sexual orientation". And you go to great lengths to disqualify others based on this or that nitpicking detail that supposedly claims they "don't quite measure up".

Meanwhile "gays" and "lesbians" don't quite measure up either. So if one illegitimately claims "sexual orientation!!" by self-description, what makes it more legally binding than a guy claiming his natural sexual attraction to more than one woman at a time; and his lifestyle born from that (his "intimate choice-Obergefell 2015)? The answer is it doesn't. They are both equally viable as "solid sexual orientations".

So, having established that, how will your ilk suddenly become Emily Post and deny polygamy? Because "it's icky"? Because it's 'bad for the kids involved!'....?

Where in anything I said do you get "homosexuals deserve a monopoly on the phrase "sexual orientation""?

I don't disqualify others based on nitpicking detail, unless you consider the definition of sexual orientation to be a nitpicking detail.

You can say that sexual attraction to more than one woman at a time is a sexual orientation all you want, that doesn't make it true. Perhaps more importantly, even if it were true, it is not the same thing as polygamy.

You've established nothing but your own insanity. And as I've said before, I am not opposed to polygamy being legal, I just realize it's a lot harder to implement than same sex marriage was because the current framework of marriage does not fit with more than 2 people at a time.

 

[mdk]

So, having established that, how will your ilk suddenly become Emily Post and deny polygamy? Because "it's icky"? Because it's 'bad for the kids involved!'....? (Hint, you can't. Obergefell has already made it legal for them to marry. Either that or if states can disqualify some sexual orientations, they can disqualify them all...)

Why would the Brown family have to sue if their marriages were already made legal as a result of Obergefell? Either you know something they don't know or you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. The smart money is on the latter.

 

[Silhouette]

How much do they pay you to troll here mdk?

 

[Silhouette]

No, you nitwit. I'm saying that men who are only sexually attracted to multiple women are probably rare. In other words, if they see one woman, they find no attraction. If you want to claim polygamy is a sexual orientation, then a person who had an orientation of polygamy would not be attracted to a single partner....

Playing word games.. OK. I'll play.,,,So if you use an anus as an artificial vagina, does that mean you are not gay? And if a lesbian uses a dildo or a strapon, does that mean she or her partner are not gay? Let's just put it this way. If your "sexual orientation" male members can use an anus as an artificial vagina and its female members crave dildos and strapon dicks, it is as legitimate to call theirs a sexual orientation "homosexual", as it is to call a man craving sex with multiple women a polyamorous-orientation....So now in the interest of fair play, we've found them both to be sexual orientations, Obergefell applies equally to both of them; or any other sexual orientation that likes to legitimately or illegitimately label itself as such.

As usual, it's clear you don't understand what the hell you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure you do know what I'm talking about. If a hetero dude was asking his girlfriend to wear men's clothes and do him in the ass with a strapon dildo on a regular basis....I'm pretty sure your cult would know exactly what I'm talking about. CLOSETED issues. In other words a gray area as to a solid sexual orientation. So your assertion is that "homosexuals deserve a monopoly on the phrase "sexual orientation". And you go to great lengths to disqualify others based on this or that nitpicking detail that supposedly claims they "don't quite measure up".

Meanwhile "gays" and "lesbians" don't quite measure up either. So if one illegitimately claims "sexual orientation!!" by self-description, what makes it more legally binding than a guy claiming his natural sexual attraction to more than one woman at a time; and his lifestyle born from that (his "intimate choice-Obergefell 2015)? The answer is it doesn't. They are both equally viable as "solid sexual orientations".

So, having established that, how will your ilk suddenly become Emily Post and deny polygamy? Because "it's icky"? Because it's 'bad for the kids involved!'....?

Where in anything I said do you get "homosexuals deserve a monopoly on the phrase "sexual orientation""?...I don't disqualify others based on nitpicking detail, unless you consider the definition of sexual orientation to be a nitpicking detail. ...You can say that sexual attraction to more than one woman at a time is a sexual orientation all you want, that doesn't make it true. Perhaps more importantly, even if it were true, it is not the same thing as polygamy....

But homosexual men using another guy's anus as an artificial vagina has gray area issues with a firm definition of sexual orientation as "homosexual". Likewise with lesbians using dildos...gray area.. Then suddenly when a man expresses an orientation towards muliple women (or he doesn't feel sexually satisfied), suddenly you insist on a distinct and discriminating definition.

If gays can self-describe as being oriented a certain way sexually, so can anyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, because "I'm wrong" that we could find a panel of legal experts to testify that some men are sexually oriented towards sex with multiple women.
..

Is that what the voices in your head told you today?

No, it's what everyone knows to be irrefutable, observable and documented fact. ...

Wow- how did you manage to get every single detail in your entire sentence absolutely wrong?

 

[Syriusly]

How much do they pay you to troll here mdk?

I am sure he is paid as much as you are paid by Westboro Baptist church to troll here.

 

[Syriusly]

No, you nitwit. I'm saying that men who are only sexually attracted to multiple women are probably rare. In other words, if they see one woman, they find no attraction. If you want to claim polygamy is a sexual orientation, then a person who had an orientation of polygamy would not be attracted to a single partner....

Playing word games.. OK. I'll play.,,,So if you use an anus as an artificial vagina, does that mean you are not gay? And if a lesbian uses a dildo or a strapon, does that mean she or her partner are not gay? Let's just put it this way. If your "sexual orientation" male members can use an anus as an artificial vagina and its female members crave dildos and strapon dicks, it is as legitimate to call theirs a sexual orientation "homosexual", as it is to call a man craving sex with multiple women a polyamorous-orientation....So now in the interest of fair play, we've found them both to be sexual orientations, Obergefell applies equally to both of them; or any other sexual orientation that likes to legitimately or illegitimately label itself as such.

As usual, it's clear you don't understand what the hell you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure you do know what I'm talking about.

I am pretty sure that we all know you are talking about your usual anti-gay lies.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Since men are attracted to multiple women sexually, it is a sexual orientation. r.

So you think that every boy in high school except for homosexuals have the sexual orientation of 'Polygamous"

Because I can tell you from experience that straight high school males are sexually attracted to almost every breathing woman that they meet each day.

You just make this crap up as you go along and insist everyone else believe your fantasies.

 

[Montrovant]

No, you nitwit. I'm saying that men who are only sexually attracted to multiple women are probably rare. In other words, if they see one woman, they find no attraction. If you want to claim polygamy is a sexual orientation, then a person who had an orientation of polygamy would not be attracted to a single partner....

Playing word games.. OK. I'll play.,,,So if you use an anus as an artificial vagina, does that mean you are not gay? And if a lesbian uses a dildo or a strapon, does that mean she or her partner are not gay? Let's just put it this way. If your "sexual orientation" male members can use an anus as an artificial vagina and its female members crave dildos and strapon dicks, it is as legitimate to call theirs a sexual orientation "homosexual", as it is to call a man craving sex with multiple women a polyamorous-orientation....So now in the interest of fair play, we've found them both to be sexual orientations, Obergefell applies equally to both of them; or any other sexual orientation that likes to legitimately or illegitimately label itself as such.

As usual, it's clear you don't understand what the hell you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure you do know what I'm talking about. If a hetero dude was asking his girlfriend to wear men's clothes and do him in the ass with a strapon dildo on a regular basis....I'm pretty sure your cult would know exactly what I'm talking about. CLOSETED issues. In other words a gray area as to a solid sexual orientation. So your assertion is that "homosexuals deserve a monopoly on the phrase "sexual orientation". And you go to great lengths to disqualify others based on this or that nitpicking detail that supposedly claims they "don't quite measure up".

Meanwhile "gays" and "lesbians" don't quite measure up either. So if one illegitimately claims "sexual orientation!!" by self-description, what makes it more legally binding than a guy claiming his natural sexual attraction to more than one woman at a time; and his lifestyle born from that (his "intimate choice-Obergefell 2015)? The answer is it doesn't. They are both equally viable as "solid sexual orientations".

So, having established that, how will your ilk suddenly become Emily Post and deny polygamy? Because "it's icky"? Because it's 'bad for the kids involved!'....?

Where in anything I said do you get "homosexuals deserve a monopoly on the phrase "sexual orientation""?...I don't disqualify others based on nitpicking detail, unless you consider the definition of sexual orientation to be a nitpicking detail. ...You can say that sexual attraction to more than one woman at a time is a sexual orientation all you want, that doesn't make it true. Perhaps more importantly, even if it were true, it is not the same thing as polygamy....

But homosexual men using another guy's anus as an artificial vagina has gray area issues with a firm definition of sexual orientation as "homosexual". Likewise with lesbians using dildos...gray area.. Then suddenly when a man expresses an orientation towards muliple women (or he doesn't feel sexually satisfied), suddenly you insist on a distinct and discriminating definition.

If gays can self-describe as being oriented a certain way sexually, so can anyone else.

So in your mind, sexual orientation is based on the sex acts a person performs?

 

[mdk]

How much do they pay you to troll here mdk?

Said the women that begs for donations on the internet so she can keep smearing queers. To answer your question, I get paid a dollar for every tear you shed. I am hoping to retire by the end of the week. lol

 

[Montrovant]

How much do they pay you to troll here mdk?

Said the women that begs for donations on the internet so she can keep smearing queers. To answer your question, I get paid a dollar for every tear you shed. I am hoping to retire by the end of the week. lol

Could this be the best post ever?

 

[Silhouette]

So in your mind, sexual orientation is based on the sex acts a person performs?

No, but more importantly it's the Court's opinion that sexual orientation is about "private intimate choices". So, polyamory qualifies.

 

[mdk]

So in your mind, sexual orientation is based on the sex acts a person performs?

No, but more importantly it's the Court's opinion that sexual orientation is about "private intimate choices". So, polyamory qualifies.

That must be be why polygamy is presently legal in every state according to you. Funny that you would wrongly cite a ruling you believe illegal as your proof. lol