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

[Silhouette]

Nevertheless...gray area. You're actually supporting my argument that if one orientation can have gray areas so can they all.

I'm not supporting your argument at all. That orientation can be on a sliding scale doesn't make polygamy an orientation. It doesn't mean that having anal sex has to do with orientation. It doesn't mean any of the things you have claimed. You have done nothing but make things up and thrown them out here, then looked to see if anyone would buy your BS. Then, after you repeat the silliness for a while, you quietly drop it and move on to some new, made-up argument. This is just the latest example.

Why not? If the polyamorists feel their's is an orientation, who are you to judge them? Shall they judge that homosexual isn't an orientation because "gay" men are using artificial vaginas and lesbians are using dildos?

Is there any reason, other than you think it's "icky", that you keep bringing up sex acts of homosexuals?....The reason polygamy isn't an orientation is because the word is defined as a person with multiple spouses at the same time. It's apples to oranges....Polygamy and polyamory are about the number of people one is in a relationship with. Even if you were to define an attraction to multiple people as a sexual orientation (it is not, but let's assume for this it is), that still is a different thing than polygamy or polyamory. A polygamist doesn't need to have a sexual attraction to multiple people at once.

Kind of like how "homosexual" isn't really homosexual if two lesbians are using dildos or a man is using another effeminate man's hole between his legs as an artificial vagina. Like I said, if this gray-area orientation can be called "an orientation", then a dude who doesn't feel sexually satisfied unless he has multiple partners can also say he has a sexual orientation towards multiple partners. In fact, his is much more clearly defined and rock solid. Where a "lesbian" is using a dildo you can say "well...I guess she's not sexually attracted to males??" Where a man is boinking five women at the same time you can definitely say "yeah, he's a randy dude; that's his kink".

If you think you're going to narrow the definition of "sexual orientation" legally to exclude many children not now experiencing the benefits of marriage, you've got your work cut out for you. *waves to the dildo-lesbians and "top" gay men* *waves to Justice Kennedy*

 

[mdk]

I really really hope some dumb bunny makes that argument in court. "Your honor, gay men are not really gay if they have they have anal sex." They would have to halt the proceedings so the court stenographer could record all the howls of laughter into the record.

 

[Montrovant]

Nevertheless...gray area. You're actually supporting my argument that if one orientation can have gray areas so can they all.

Something must be a sexual orientation first. Polygamy and polyamory are not.

Why not? If the polyamorists feel their's is an orientation, who are you to judge them? Shall they judge that homosexual isn't an orientation because "gay" men are using artificial vaginas and lesbians are using dildos?

I'm not judging polyamorists. I'm just pointing out it is not a sexual orientation. A polyamorist can be homosexual, or heterosexual, or bisexual. Polyamory is simply having multiple romantic relationships at the same time.

The only one who thinks that anal sex or dildos are some sort of defining characteristic of sexual orientation is you.

Kind of like how "homosexual" isn't really homosexual if two lesbians are using dildos or a man is using another effeminate man's hole between his legs as an artificial vagina. Like I said, if this gray-area orientation can be called "an orientation", then a dude who doesn't feel sexually satisfied unless he has multiple partners can also say he has a sexual orientation towards multiple partners. In fact, his is much more clearly defined and rock solid. Where a "lesbian" is using a dildo you can say "well...I guess she's not sexually attracted to males??" Where a man is boinking five women at the same time you can definitely say "yeah, he's a randy dude; that's his kink".

If you think you're going to narrow the definition of "sexual orientation" legally to exclude many children not now experiencing the benefits of marriage, you've got your work cut out for you. *waves to the dildo-lesbians and "top" gay men* *waves to Justice Kennedy*

It may be a gray area in your reason-deficient mind, but I don't get confused thinking that anal sex or dildos change a person's sexual orientation. Of course, unlike you, I actually look at the definition of sexual orientation and apply reason and logic to this.

I'm not narrowing the definition of sexual orientation, legally or otherwise. Instead, you are attempting to widen it. Not just widen it, but move it into entirely different territory.

And once again, even if you consider an attraction to multiple partners to be a sexual orientation, that is not the same thing as polyamory or polygamy. You would need a new word for a multi-person sexual orientation, as polyamory and polygamy already have definitions not related to sexual orientation.

 

[Silhouette]

But what about the children of polyamorists who aren't getting the benefits of marriage? *waves again to Justice Kennedy*

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Nevertheless...gray area. You're actually supporting my argument that if one orientation can have gray areas so can they all.

I'm not supporting your argument at all. That orientation can be on a sliding scale doesn't make polygamy an orientation. It doesn't mean that having anal sex has to do with orientation. It doesn't mean any of the things you have claimed. You have done nothing but make things up and thrown them out here, then looked to see if anyone would buy your BS. Then, after you repeat the silliness for a while, you quietly drop it and move on to some new, made-up argument. This is just the latest example.

Why not? If the polyamorists feel their's is an orientation,

The only one making that claim is you.

Just you.

And according to your definition- every straight male in high school is a 'polyamorist'

 

[Syriusly]

But what about the children of polyamorists who aren't getting the benefits of marriage? *waves again to Justice Kennedy*

What about the children of gay couples? Why do you want to injure those children?

 

[Silhouette]

according to your definition- every straight male in high school is a 'polyamorist'

Is that supposed to negate polyamory as a sexual orientation, if a lot of people are polyamorous? So numbers of people with a given sexual orientation affect whether the orientation is legitimate or not? I don't see your point here.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't get confused thinking that anal sex or dildos change a person's sexual orientation.

But if on a regular basis, a hetero guy wanted his wife to wear a strapon and drill him, or a hetero woman wanted her husband to wear a dress and heels when they had sex, you'd call that behavior "totally hetero!" Yeah, right. My ass you would. The fact is there are many closeted hetero behaviors going on in the "gay" community. At best "homosexual" is a very murky sexual "orientation"..

 

[Montrovant]

I don't get confused thinking that anal sex or dildos change a person's sexual orientation.

But if on a regular basis, a hetero guy wanted his wife to wear a strapon and drill him, or a hetero woman wanted her husband to wear a dress and heels when they had sex, you'd call that behavior "totally hetero!" Yeah, right. My ass you would. The fact is there are many closeted hetero behaviors going on in the "gay" community. At best "homosexual" is a very murky sexual "orientation"..

Unlike you, I realize that sex acts are different from who a person is attracted to. People do all kinds of things for and during sex. That doesn't change their orientation. If a man gets physical pleasure for anal sex, but is only attracted to women, he's still heterosexual. If a woman wants her husband to role play as a woman, but is only attracted to men, she's heterosexual. Or perhaps those people aren't attracted to only one gender and are, instead, bisexual. Whatever the case, their sexual orientation is based on who they are sexually attracted to, not what acts they perform during sex.

Are you going to argue next that every sexual taste, fetish, or kink is its own orientation?

 

[mdk]

I don't get confused thinking that anal sex or dildos change a person's sexual orientation.

But if on a regular basis, a hetero guy wanted his wife to wear a strapon and drill him, or a hetero woman wanted her husband to wear a dress and heels when they had sex, you'd call that behavior "totally hetero!" Yeah, right. My ass you would. The fact is there are many closeted hetero behaviors going on in the "gay" community. At best "homosexual" is a very murky sexual "orientation"..

I love this lunacy! Gay men that fuck other gay men in ass are closeted heterosexuals. Watching you slip further into mental illness is as funny as it is sad, but mostly funny. lol.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't get confused thinking that anal sex or dildos change a person's sexual orientation.

But if on a regular basis, a hetero guy wanted his wife to wear a strapon and drill him, or a hetero woman wanted her husband to wear a dress and heels when they had sex, you'd call that behavior "totally hetero!" Yeah, right. My ass you would. The fact is there are many closeted hetero behaviors going on in the "gay" community. At best "homosexual" is a very murky sexual "orientation"..

Unlike you, I realize that sex acts are different from who a person is attracted to. People do all kinds of things for and during sex. That doesn't change their orientation. If a man gets physical pleasure for anal sex, but is only attracted to women, he's still heterosexual. If a woman wants her husband to role play as a woman, but is only attracted to men, she's heterosexual. Or perhaps those people aren't attracted to only one gender and are, instead, bisexual. Whatever the case, their sexual orientation is based on who they are sexually attracted to, not what acts they perform during sex.

Are you going to argue next that every sexual taste, fetish, or kink is its own orientation?

Yes, that's exactly right. If a person is habitually attracted to just one type of *thing* to find sexual release, that is EXACTLY the definition of sexual-orientation. You're getting warmer. You're coming close to realizing that homosexuality was learned at some point, just like every other kink. We livestock handlers know that every species of mammal we deal with can be sexually oriented in any direction we choose (used in training for artificial insemination or "AI") if gotten a hold of at a crucial threshold just at the onset of puberty. I can train a pig to be sexually aroused at the sight of a turnip. I can train a horse to be sexually aroused at a certain color of halter. Often cattlemen will train bulls to become sexually aroused at the sight and smells of a steer (castrated male), to save valuable cows from getting roughed up when the bull mounts for collection of semen. It only takes a couple of conditioning pairings and the "kink" is established.

Yes, there are "gay cows" and they are that way precisely because they were trained to be. This application goes across even avian and reptiles too. They use the technique in zoos to preserve endangered species and keep biodiversity up by shipping rare semen all across the world. Homo sapiens (you'll argue next) "is the singular exception to that rule!".

I still say that if you heard of a man regularly insisting his wife use a strap on dildo and drill him in the ass every time they had sex, you'd maintain his "heterosexuality" was nonexistent. Or at least you'd argue he was in the closet as to being a homosexual. Yes, you would. Everyone knows you would. So you're basically lying to yourself and the readers here. If we hear of lesbians regularly choosing a dildo in sex we can say, "yeah, there's some gray area there, some closeted hetero issues".

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Your cult seems to think it has a monopoly on language itself. You feel free to call out "closeted!" when it comes to labeling heteros. But put the clamp down when heteros call out "closeted!" in your ranks. It's OK for two dudes, according to your, to ass ram each other and play-act mommy (the feminine one, you know, the one the "top" is attracted to??) for kids. But suddenly it's not OK if polyamorists want to marry and give their children the benefit of marriage. Hypocrisy may be fine in your circles, and you may have even sold some of the less than bright public on it. But a court doesn't have a lot of respect for hypocritical argument. None at all in my experience.

 

[mdk]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Your cult seems to think it has a monopoly on language itself. You feel free to call out "closeted!" when it comes to labeling heteros. But put the clamp down when heteros call out "closeted!" in your ranks. It's OK for two dudes, according to your, to ass ram each other and play-act mommy (the feminine one, you know, the one the "top" is attracted to??) for kids. But suddenly it's not OK if polyamorists want to marry and give their children the benefit of marriage. Hypocrisy may be fine in your circles, and you may have even sold some of the less than bright public on it. But a court doesn't have a lot of respect for hypocritical argument. None at all in my experience.

Whats good for the goose!? That is a rather ironic statement considering you are all for religious freedom unless they so happen to be the Brown family. You blindly support religious freedoms if they can be used aganist gay people, but the Brown's claim of religious freedom are beneath your contempt. Hypocrisy thy name is Mentally Sil.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't get confused thinking that anal sex or dildos change a person's sexual orientation.

But if on a regular basis, a hetero guy wanted his wife to wear a strapon and drill him, or a hetero woman wanted her husband to wear a dress and heels when they had sex, you'd call that behavior "totally hetero!" Yeah, right. My ass you would. The fact is there are many closeted hetero behaviors going on in the "gay" community. At best "homosexual" is a very murky sexual "orientation"..

Unlike you, I realize that sex acts are different from who a person is attracted to. People do all kinds of things for and during sex. That doesn't change their orientation. If a man gets physical pleasure for anal sex, but is only attracted to women, he's still heterosexual. If a woman wants her husband to role play as a woman, but is only attracted to men, she's heterosexual. Or perhaps those people aren't attracted to only one gender and are, instead, bisexual. Whatever the case, their sexual orientation is based on who they are sexually attracted to, not what acts they perform during sex.

Are you going to argue next that every sexual taste, fetish, or kink is its own orientation?

Yes, that's exactly right. If a person is habitually attracted to just one type of *thing* to find sexual release, that is EXACTLY the definition of sexual-orientation. You're getting warmer. You're coming close to realizing that homosexuality was learned at some point, just like every other kink. We livestock handlers know that every species of mammal we deal with can be sexually oriented in any direction we choose (used in training for artificial insemination or "AI") if gotten a hold of at a crucial threshold just at the onset of puberty. I can train a pig to be sexually aroused at the sight of a turnip. I can train a horse to be sexually aroused at a certain color of halter. Often cattlemen will train bulls to become sexually aroused at the sight and smells of a steer (castrated male), to save valuable cows from getting roughed up when the bull mounts for collection of semen. It only takes a couple of conditioning pairings and the "kink" is established.

Yes, there are "gay cows" and they are that way precisely because they were trained to be. This application goes across even avian and reptiles too. They use the technique in zoos to preserve endangered species and keep biodiversity up by shipping rare semen all across the world. Homo sapiens (you'll argue next) "is the singular exception to that rule!".

I still say that if you heard of a man regularly insisting his wife use a strap on dildo and drill him in the ass every time they had sex, you'd maintain his "heterosexuality" was nonexistent. Or at least you'd argue he was in the closet as to being a homosexual. Yes, you would. Everyone knows you would. So you're basically lying to yourself and the readers here. If we hear of lesbians regularly choosing a dildo in sex we can say, "yeah, there's some gray area there, some closeted hetero issues".

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Your cult seems to think it has a monopoly on language itself. You feel free to call out "closeted!" when it comes to labeling heteros. But put the clamp down when heteros call out "closeted!" in your ranks. It's OK for two dudes, according to your, to ass ram each other and play-act mommy (the feminine one, you know, the one the "top" is attracted to??) for kids. But suddenly it's not OK if polyamorists want to marry and give their children the benefit of marriage. Hypocrisy may be fine in your circles, and you may have even sold some of the less than bright public on it. But a court doesn't have a lot of respect for hypocritical argument. None at all in my experience.

I'm not in any cult. I don't call people out for being closeted. I never said anything about homosexuals having sex with or around kids being OK. I never said I oppose polygamy. There's no hypocrisy because you are creating straw men rather than arguing against anything I actually said.

Are you aware that some men find pleasure from having their prostate stimulated? That doesn't make them attracted to men. Are you aware that some women get pleasure from vaginal penetration? That doesn't make them attracted to men either. Some people get pleasure from being tied up, does that affect their orientation? Of course not. What you do during sex is different from who you are attracted to. Heterosexuals and homosexuals practice many varied different things during sex. A person's sexual kinks or preferred position or favorite location are not their orientation.

When did this become an argument about what causes homosexuality? What relevance does it have to the conversation whether it is a learned behavior?

Your personal definition of sexual orientation is meaningless to anyone but yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ The relevance...oh "playing pretend I don't know" Monty...is that what causes homosexuality means it's a behavior. And it's a sexual fixation, just like any other kink. And if you don't have a monopoly on calling a kink a sexual orientation (which you don't), then you don't have a monopoly on Obergefell.

Like I really had to spell that out for you. How deceitful you are.

 

[mdk]

^^ The relevance...oh "playing pretend I don't know" Monty...is that what causes homosexuality means it's a behavior. And it's a sexual fixation, just like any other kink. And if you don't have a monopoly on calling a kink a sexual orientation (which you don't), then you don't have a monopoly on Obergefell.

Like I really had to spell that out for you. How deceitful you are.

You don't have a monopoly on religious freedoms. Don't be shocked when the Brown family doesn't argue that polygamy is a sexual orientation in court. Even if they don't, you'll just pretend that they did so you can continue your mentally ill crusade against gay people.

 

[Montrovant]

^^ The relevance...oh "playing pretend I don't know" Monty...is that what causes homosexuality means it's a behavior. And it's a sexual fixation, just like any other kink. And if you don't have a monopoly on calling a kink a sexual orientation (which you don't), then you don't have a monopoly on Obergefell.

Like I really had to spell that out for you. How deceitful you are.

I didn't say I have a monopoly on what is a sexual orientation. What I have is the actual definition. You know, the definition in actual dictionaries? Links to which have been provided to you? Like this : the definition of sexual orientation or this : Definition of SEXUAL ORIENTATION. What you have is your imagination. Which do you think is actually important?

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not imagining that a habitual arousal pattern in anyone of any type is a sexual orientation. You're mincing words isn't going to win estranging certain children left out of the benefits of marriage Monty. You're fucked, like I told you. Kennedy's words are in black and white.

 

[Montrovant]

^^ The relevance...oh "playing pretend I don't know" Monty...is that what causes homosexuality means it's a behavior. And it's a sexual fixation, just like any other kink. And if you don't have a monopoly on calling a kink a sexual orientation (which you don't), then you don't have a monopoly on Obergefell.

Like I really had to spell that out for you. How deceitful you are.

What causes homosexuality does not affect whether or not it is a behavior.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not imagining that a habitual arousal pattern in anyone of any type is a sexual orientation. You're mincing words isn't going to win estranging certain children left out of the benefits of marriage Monty. You're fucked, like I told you. Kennedy's words are in black and white.

I'm not mincing words. I'm looking at the definition of sexual orientation and applying it. You, on the other hand, are creating your own definition for sexual orientation to attempt to bolster your arguments.

Kennedy's words do not say the various things you claim they do. Neither do pretty much any other rulings you've commented on. Your imagination is not US law nor does it have any impact on US law.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not imagining that a habitual arousal pattern in anyone of any type is a sexual orientation. You're mincing words isn't going to win estranging certain children left out of the benefits of marriage Monty. You're fucked, like I told you. Kennedy's words are in black and white.

Let me ask you a question. Perhaps, if you actually answer it and answer it honestly, you will see the problem with your arguments.

If a man is attracted to women, and is not attracted to men, is that man a heterosexual?

Is heterosexuality a sexual orientation?

If a heterosexual man is only aroused by women in stockings, is he no longer a heterosexual man? What is his sexual orientation if not?