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

[Syriusly]

[ Man/Boy sex is not homosexuality?t.

No more than a man raping a 2 year old girl is 'heterosexuality'.

Child rape is child rape.

You want to label homosexuals as child rapists to further some sick agenda you have- but as the father of a daughter it pisses me off.

I see this shit from you bigots all the time- and you put girls and boys in danger by claiming that as long as you keep kids away from 'homosexuals' that they are safe.

Which is of course why the kids left with Jerry Sandusky- the nice heterosexual husband and father- was SUCH as good idea.

ANY child is more at risk of sexual molestation. with ANY man statistically than with ANY woman.

If you are determining who to leave your child with- your only concern is whether or not the person is a homosexual.
I would be leaving my child with a woman- knowing that statistically my child is 9 times less likely to be molested than if I leave my child with a man- regardless of whether he is openly gay or straight.

Where is your concern for our daughters? Nowhere to be found.

Which is it-
Are you anti-girl or
Just using the issue of child sexual molestation to further your anti-gay agenda?

 

[elektra]

And exactly as I described......she's insisting that her willful ignorance and refusal to read the thread is somehow my responsibility.

You can't teach that. But you can point and laugh at it.

Its remarkably simple; Lek and her ilk don't want to know what the Supreme Court ruled. They don't want to see the Supreme Court's explicit findings that same sex marriage benefits children. Or that the right to marriage isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Because then they would have to admit that their entire argument is just ignoring the findings of the Supreme Court......and replacing it with whatever pseudo-legal gibberish they care to make up.

I find that people who do not quote and link, have no idea what they are talking about. That is why I challenged you to link, when you made your statement, if you do not want to support your statements, now, when you make them, fine. But unless you quote and link, you are simply posting nonsense.

You think the person who skips the entire thread, and reads the last post, like this one, will believe that you have provided a link and that it supports your post 15 pages later?

I really do not care if you link or not, when you do I will follow your link, when you don't I will point it out, crying that you posted it 15 pages ago hardly supports your contentions.

 

[Syriusly]

There are very few homosexual familes- more than half of those are headed by lesbians- the fact is that 90-95% of all child molestation is by men- by a huge margin towards girls. And by a large margin is more likely to be by a family member- step father, grandfather, brother..

No- homosexual men are not the only men who can rape boys- a sterling example was Jerry Sandusky- an openly heterosexual man who raped little boys. Child molesters are almost exclusively men- and some rape girs, some rape boys, some rape both- and that is not necessarily related to what gender- if any that of the adults that they have sex with.

I am not expressing my opinion- I am expressing a statistical fact- a child is far more likely statistically to be molested by a male family member than by any lesbian- since 90-95% of child sexual predators are men- and 30% of child molesters are close family members

About 30% of those who sexually abuse children are relatives of the child, such as fathers, uncles, or cousins.

Child Sexual Abuse - PTSD: National Center for PTSD


But what is very nice to note, is that your link does not support your original statement, not in the least, just as I said it would not. It is also note worthy to state that you changed your statement as well.t.

Yet you have yet to disprove a single thing I have stated- nor are you able- or capabable of disputing my citations.

 

[Syriusly]

And exactly as I described......she's insisting that her willful ignorance and refusal to read the thread is somehow my responsibility.

You can't teach that. But you can point and laugh at it.

Its remarkably simple; Lek and her ilk don't want to know what the Supreme Court ruled. They don't want to see the Supreme Court's explicit findings that same sex marriage benefits children. Or that the right to marriage isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Because then they would have to admit that their entire argument is just ignoring the findings of the Supreme Court......and replacing it with whatever pseudo-legal gibberish they care to make up.

I find that people who do not quote and link, have no idea what they are talking about. .

So you are admitting you don't know what you are talking about.

You have posted 34 times in this thread.

Without once posting a quote- or a link.

As you said

I find that people who do not quote and link, have no idea what they are talking about.

And that is certainly true aboutyou.

 

[Syriusly]

[o not care if you link or not, when you do I will follow your link, when you don't I will point it out, crying that you posted it 15 pages ago hardly supports your contentions.

You have shown no sign that you have followed any link anywhere.

My citations- with the links- support what I say.

Your citations- don't exist.

And you have nothing that supports your opinions.

 

[Syriusly]

[
But either way, a terrible fact for you to admit, is most rapes of boys are by homosexuals. I am surprised you wanted to speak of rape, seeings how it exposes the danger posed by homosexual men, I mean, "some" homosexual men.

The men that rape children are child molesters.

Between 69%-90% of all child sexual molestation is by men against girls.
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Like all homophobic bigots- you want to focus on the tragedy of boys who are molested- so you can blame it on homosexuals.

And then you ignore the vast majority of child molestation victims- who are girls- because you can't blame that on homosexuals.

Why?

Either you have a problem with little girls- and just don't care that they are being sexually assaulted or
Your point is just to attack homosexuals.

Sounds like you are starting a new thread in the middle of this one.

Sounds like you are just dodging my pointing out that your posts are just homophobic smears

The men that rape children are child molesters.

Between 69%-90% of all child sexual molestation is by men against girls.
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Like all homophobic bigots- you want to focus on the tragedy of boys who are molested- so you can blame it on homosexuals.

And then you ignore the vast majority of child molestation victims- who are girls- because you can't blame that on homosexuals.

Why?

Either you have a problem with little girls- and just don't care that they are being sexually assaulted or
Your point is just to attack homosexuals

 

[elektra]

[ Man/Boy sex is not homosexuality?t.

No more than a man raping a 2 year old girl is 'heterosexuality'.

Child rape is child rape.

You want to label homosexuals as child rapists to further some sick agenda you have- but as the father of a daughter it pisses me off.

I see this shit from you bigots all the time- and you put girls and boys in danger by claiming that as long as you keep kids away from 'homosexuals' that they are safe.

Which is of course why the kids left with Jerry Sandusky- the nice heterosexual husband and father- was SUCH as good idea.

ANY child is more at risk of sexual molestation. with ANY man statistically than with ANY woman.

If you are determining who to leave your child with- your only concern is whether or not the person is a homosexual.
I would be leaving my child with a woman- knowing that statistically my child is 9 times less likely to be molested than if I leave my child with a man- regardless of whether he is openly gay or straight.

Where is your concern for our daughters? Nowhere to be found.

Which is it-
Are you anti-girl or
Just using the issue of child sexual molestation to further your anti-gay agenda?

You can define things as politically correct as you like. Homosexuality is and always be, sex between male and male, or female and female.

Yes, I admit statistically men are the dangerous ones, but you can not protect boys from homosexual men because you must support all the homosexuals as one. Boys are raped by homosexual men, period, but you can not admit that because at the same time you want homosexuals to adopt boys. You want homosexuals to go the doctor and have boys made for in a test tube. Without a mother and father. Your posts are full of contradictions and errors.

I have thus far only made one or two simple statements, and in response you have how many posts? 50! I see you will ignore where you are wrong, that is fine.

Bigot? What I know of homosexuality and men, can not be posted on this board. I should write a book, I would call it, Musing of my Gay Brother, who died of aids.

You are sick, sick, sick, man/woman. You think it is fine to give boys to homosexual men and then come up with the politically correct statement that it is heterosexual men raping boys.

 

[Syriusly]

I like cheese.

Now both our posts have the same relevance to this thread. Is that about it, Elektra?

If yes, then feel free to join us when you have something relevant to contribute.

like this link to the supreme court you made a claim to?

I will be back in a couple hours to see if you have that link, I doubt you will post it, you really hate to have your position exposed as being built on lies.

Its your responsibility to be "up to speed" on a thread hon, not anyone else's

That's what cracks me up about Elecktra. She literally argues that *I'm* responsible for *her* willful ignorance.

You can't teach that kind of batshit. If she ever wants to educate herself, the thread awaits to be read. She won't, though. As she doesn't want to know the cases, doesn't want to see the evidence.

I think its more like laziness. Ironic that SOCONs exhibit the trait that they continuously decry

Nah, its desperate, willful ignorance on your part. As this thread is hardly the only source for any of the cases surrounding same sex marriage. And you refuse to look at any of them. As you don't want to know.

The amusing part is when you insist that your willful ignorance is somehow *my* responsibility. Lek....that's on you.

Worse, its not like we can't read the cases, see the Supreme Court's ruling, or verify their quotes because you pretend it doesn't exist.

But tell us again how you speak for 'all children'. We can always use a giggle.

Isn't it bizarre how Elektra and Silhouette are so similar- how they are entirely impervious to the facts?

That they spout their bizarre opinions as if that makes them facts?

 

[elektra]

[
But either way, a terrible fact for you to admit, is most rapes of boys are by homosexuals. I am surprised you wanted to speak of rape, seeings how it exposes the danger posed by homosexual men, I mean, "some" homosexual men.

The men that rape children are child molesters.

Between 69%-90% of all child sexual molestation is by men against girls.
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Like all homophobic bigots- you want to focus on the tragedy of boys who are molested- so you can blame it on homosexuals.

And then you ignore the vast majority of child molestation victims- who are girls- because you can't blame that on homosexuals.

Why?

Either you have a problem with little girls- and just don't care that they are being sexually assaulted or
Your point is just to attack homosexuals.

Sounds like you are starting a new thread in the middle of this one.

Sounds like you are just dodging my pointing out that your posts are just homophobic smears

The men that rape children are child molesters.

Between 69%-90% of all child sexual molestation is by men against girls.
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Like all homophobic bigots- you want to focus on the tragedy of boys who are molested- so you can blame it on homosexuals.

And then you ignore the vast majority of child molestation victims- who are girls- because you can't blame that on homosexuals.

Why?

Either you have a problem with little girls- and just don't care that they are being sexually assaulted or
Your point is just to attack homosexuals

You are not going to quote your link? Are you not drawing my attention to a portion of it? I will read it, but you should at least quote the portion you care for me to see.

mcphall, I lived on mcphall rd. as a child. I personally witnessed a family member molest a younger member of the family, ironic that the link appears on my browser as such. Yes, I know of child molestation, as a witness. I would not of brought that up had I not been reminded by the name on my tab, from your link.

 

[Skylar]

like this link to the supreme court you made a claim to?

I will be back in a couple hours to see if you have that link, I doubt you will post it, you really hate to have your position exposed as being built on lies.

Its your responsibility to be "up to speed" on a thread hon, not anyone else's

That's what cracks me up about Elecktra. She literally argues that *I'm* responsible for *her* willful ignorance.

You can't teach that kind of batshit. If she ever wants to educate herself, the thread awaits to be read. She won't, though. As she doesn't want to know the cases, doesn't want to see the evidence.

I think its more like laziness. Ironic that SOCONs exhibit the trait that they continuously decry

Nah, its desperate, willful ignorance on your part. As this thread is hardly the only source for any of the cases surrounding same sex marriage. And you refuse to look at any of them. As you don't want to know.

The amusing part is when you insist that your willful ignorance is somehow *my* responsibility. Lek....that's on you.

Worse, its not like we can't read the cases, see the Supreme Court's ruling, or verify their quotes because you pretend it doesn't exist.

But tell us again how you speak for 'all children'. We can always use a giggle.

Isn't it bizarre how Elektra and Silhouette are so similar- how they are entirely impervious to the facts?

That they spout their bizarre opinions as if that makes them facts?

Bob. Lek. Where_r_my_keys. Sil. Its all the same Begging the Question fallacy. Where they imagine whatever is they need to believe. And then insist their imagination is objective fact.

Um....'because'.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Man/Boy sex is not homosexuality?t.

No more than a man raping a 2 year old girl is 'heterosexuality'.

Child rape is child rape.

You want to label homosexuals as child rapists to further some sick agenda you have- but as the father of a daughter it pisses me off.

I see this shit from you bigots all the time- and you put girls and boys in danger by claiming that as long as you keep kids away from 'homosexuals' that they are safe.

Which is of course why the kids left with Jerry Sandusky- the nice heterosexual husband and father- was SUCH as good idea.

ANY child is more at risk of sexual molestation. with ANY man statistically than with ANY woman.

If you are determining who to leave your child with- your only concern is whether or not the person is a homosexual.
I would be leaving my child with a woman- knowing that statistically my child is 9 times less likely to be molested than if I leave my child with a man- regardless of whether he is openly gay or straight.

Where is your concern for our daughters? Nowhere to be found.

Which is it-
Are you anti-girl or
Just using the issue of child sexual molestation to further your anti-gay agenda?

You can define things as politically correct as you like. Homosexuality is and always be, sex between male and male, or female and female.

Yes, I admit statistically men are the dangerous ones, but you can not protect boys from homosexual men because you must support all the homosexuals as one. .

God you are a stupid bigot.

I keep saying- over and over- IF as you have said- your intention is to protect children from child sex predators- then you would want to keep kids away from men.

You don't want to keep kids away from men- you only want to keep kids away from homosexuals.

As I have pointed out- IF protecting kids from child sex predators was your concern- you would always prefer a child be raised by two lesbians.

But you don't.

You prefer a household with a man in it.

I don't care whether a man who rapes little girls or little boys has sex with men or women- the man is a monster- see? If the man has consensual sex with adult men- he is a homosexual monster- if he has consensual sex with and adult woman he is a heterosexual monster.

Jerry Sandusky was a heterosexual monster- he flaunted his heterosexuality by marrying a woman and having a child with her- and yet he was raping little boys.

Bigots like you claim that makes him a homosexual- because apparently sex with his wife doesn't count.

 

[Skylar]

[o not care if you link or not, when you do I will follow your link, when you don't I will point it out, crying that you posted it 15 pages ago hardly supports your contentions.

You have shown no sign that you have followed any link anywhere.

My citations- with the links- support what I say.

Your citations- don't exist.

And you have nothing that supports your opinions.

Yeah, but you forget who you're dealing with. This is Elektra.....she believes any errant thought that passes through her noggin is objective fact. Asking her for evidence to back her claims is like asking a pony to count to 'kumquat'.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Man/Boy sex is not homosexuality?t.

No more than a man raping a 2 year old girl is 'heterosexuality'.

Child rape is child rape.

You want to label homosexuals as child rapists to further some sick agenda you have- but as the father of a daughter it pisses me off.

I see this shit from you bigots all the time- and you put girls and boys in danger by claiming that as long as you keep kids away from 'homosexuals' that they are safe.

Which is of course why the kids left with Jerry Sandusky- the nice heterosexual husband and father- was SUCH as good idea.

ANY child is more at risk of sexual molestation. with ANY man statistically than with ANY woman.

If you are determining who to leave your child with- your only concern is whether or not the person is a homosexual.
I would be leaving my child with a woman- knowing that statistically my child is 9 times less likely to be molested than if I leave my child with a man- regardless of whether he is openly gay or straight.

Where is your concern for our daughters? Nowhere to be found.

Which is it-
Are you anti-girl or
Just using the issue of child sexual molestation to further your anti-gay agenda?

but you can not admit that because at the same time you want homosexuals to adopt boys. You want homosexuals to go the doctor and have boys made for in a test tube. Without a mother and father..

I want children to be adopted.

100,000 children a year in the United States are available to be adopted.
33,000 of them will will wait 3 or more years to be adopted.
Facts and Statistics

Thousands will age out of the system without any family to support them- financially or emotionally.

Yes- i want gay men to adopt them- and gay women- and straight men and straight women. I applaud anyone who steps up and couragiously offers a home to a child that needs a home.

Why don't you?

Why do you want children to not be adopted?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Bigot? What I know of homosexuality and men, can not be posted on this board. I should write a book, I would call it, Musing of my Gay Brother, who died of aids..

Yes- bigot.

I don't care what experiences you have had- real or imagined- I judge you on what you post.

Labeling gay men as child molesters does indeed make you a bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

[ You think it is fine to give boys to homosexual men and then come up with the politically correct statement that it is heterosexual men raping boys.

I think that providing children with homes is a great thing- and that every man and woman who adopts a child should be screened.

You apparently think that a man adopting a boy must be perfectly safe- just so long as the man is not openly homosexual. And of course- a man adopting a girl isn't even worth mentioning.....

Now that is sick.

 

[Syriusly]

[
But either way, a terrible fact for you to admit, is most rapes of boys are by homosexuals. I am surprised you wanted to speak of rape, seeings how it exposes the danger posed by homosexual men, I mean, "some" homosexual men.

The men that rape children are child molesters.

Between 69%-90% of all child sexual molestation is by men against girls.
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Like all homophobic bigots- you want to focus on the tragedy of boys who are molested- so you can blame it on homosexuals.

And then you ignore the vast majority of child molestation victims- who are girls- because you can't blame that on homosexuals.

Why?

Either you have a problem with little girls- and just don't care that they are being sexually assaulted or
Your point is just to attack homosexuals.

Sounds like you are starting a new thread in the middle of this one.

Sounds like you are just dodging my pointing out that your posts are just homophobic smears

The men that rape children are child molesters.

Between 69%-90% of all child sexual molestation is by men against girls.
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Like all homophobic bigots- you want to focus on the tragedy of boys who are molested- so you can blame it on homosexuals.

And then you ignore the vast majority of child molestation victims- who are girls- because you can't blame that on homosexuals.

Why?

Either you have a problem with little girls- and just don't care that they are being sexually assaulted or
Your point is just to attack homosexuals

You are not going to quote your link? Are you not drawing my attention to a portion of it? I will read it, but you should at least quote the portion you care for me to see.

mcphall, I lived on mcphall rd. as a child. I personally witnessed a family member molest a younger member of the family, ironic that the link appears on my browser as such. Yes, I know of child molestation, as a witness. I would not of brought that up had I not been reminded by the name on my tab, from your link.

Dr. Halls article on Pedophilia is an excellent article- and what I have stated is supported in the article. Read the article.

Not as if I pointed to it would make you accept it.

 

[Dot Com]

And exactly as I described......she's insisting that her willful ignorance and refusal to read the thread is somehow my responsibility.

You can't teach that. But you can point and laugh at it.

Its remarkably simple; Lek and her ilk don't want to know what the Supreme Court ruled. They don't want to see the Supreme Court's explicit findings that same sex marriage benefits children. Or that the right to marriage isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Because then they would have to admit that their entire argument is just ignoring the findings of the Supreme Court......and replacing it with whatever pseudo-legal gibberish they care to make up.

I find that people who do not quote and link, have no idea what they are talking about. That is why I challenged you to link, when you made your statement, if you do not want to support your statements, now, when you make them, fine. But unless you quote and link, you are simply posting nonsense.

You think the person who skips the entire thread, and reads the last post, like this one, will believe that you have provided a link and that it supports your post 15 pages later?

I really do not care if you link or not, when you do I will follow your link, when you don't I will point it out, crying that you posted it 15 pages ago hardly supports your contentions.

it proves that you jumped into the thread 1/2 way through. Its already been gone over but the lazy (you, in this case) don't want to follow msg board etiquette because you'll end up w/ more egg on your face

Theres a reason someone made this gif hon:

 

[elektra]

I did not label nobody, you could quote the post, but labeling, come on, we have gone round and round enough for you to know my position and me to know yours.

I never said homosexuals are child molesters, not even close. But than again, you stated child molesters are only heterosexuals, so in your politically correct world, you see yourself as right.

 

[Syriusly]

I did not label nobody, you could quote the post, but labeling, come on, we have gone round and round enough for you to know my position and me to know yours.

I never said homosexuals are child molesters, not even close. But than again, you stated child molesters are only heterosexuals, so in your politically correct world, you see yourself as right.

I believe that children should be treated equally in marriage- so that the children of gay parents can have married parents just like my child has married parents.

Why would you prefer that the children of gay parents suffer legal harm by denying those children married parents?

You believe children "suffer legal harm", I would love to see a link to that, just to know where you get your ridiculous ideas from. Children can suffer if they homosexuals they live with are not married but they can not suffer by being forced to live with homosexuals against their will.

You are an idiot.

I- and Justice Kennedy believe that.
Justice Kennedy On Proposition 8: Ban Causes Children Of Same-Sex Parents Immediate Legal Injury
"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[elektra]

And exactly as I described......she's insisting that her willful ignorance and refusal to read the thread is somehow my responsibility.

You can't teach that. But you can point and laugh at it.

Its remarkably simple; Lek and her ilk don't want to know what the Supreme Court ruled. They don't want to see the Supreme Court's explicit findings that same sex marriage benefits children. Or that the right to marriage isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Because then they would have to admit that their entire argument is just ignoring the findings of the Supreme Court......and replacing it with whatever pseudo-legal gibberish they care to make up.

I find that people who do not quote and link, have no idea what they are talking about. That is why I challenged you to link, when you made your statement, if you do not want to support your statements, now, when you make them, fine. But unless you quote and link, you are simply posting nonsense.

You think the person who skips the entire thread, and reads the last post, like this one, will believe that you have provided a link and that it supports your post 15 pages later?

I really do not care if you link or not, when you do I will follow your link, when you don't I will point it out, crying that you posted it 15 pages ago hardly supports your contentions.

it proves that you jumped into the thread 1/2 way through hon. Its already been gone over but the lazy (you, in this case) don't want to follow msg board etiquette because you'll end up w/ more egg on your face

Theres a reason someone made this gif hon:

hon? first and foremost, Elektra is a record label, not the comic book hero your think of, I got balls, I am a guy, idiot.
Second, I was posting in this thread before you, there is one link, to the history of marriage, an article, an opinion piece, so when you start calling people lazy you should look at yourself. So lets talk about egg on the face, those that claim they provided links, in this thread, have not. Not at all, but you would not know that because seeing how you came in after me, and at that jumped onto me, on the attack, without any sort of fact, just an attack, but seeing how you came in after me, and now state that I am lazy, shows one thing, you are a lousy lazy liar. There is no content that I skipped over that you read, or anyone else. This thread is 95% nonsense. If you think otherwise and care to wipe the egg off your face, you could list the posts that you believe are relevant. Start with yours that appear before mine.

You are nothing but a piss poor troll. You can not even tell if your posting against a man or woman, talk about thee most bigoted of idiots, it is a good thing I did not use a user name that referenced space aliens, idiot!