Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[elektra]

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Another great example, when confronted with a fact, again it must be about me, not about the person adopting, at that the homosexuals must make up something and attribute it to me. Why would they have to lie here to prove a point or fact if they have the facts on their side?

Then what children are you talking about when you describe the graphic sexual acts they would be 'repulsed' by?

I never described graphic sex. You are confusing your thoughts.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, but before they could make a choice you must explain to a three year old what it means to be two homosexual men.
Is that your idea, to teach what homosexuality is to 3 year old children?

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

 

[elektra]

Forcing people to live against their principles only goes so far.

Nonsense.

No one is being 'forced' to do anything.

Homosexuals adopting children forces children to live against the child's principles.

You are saying that our straight daughter is being forced to live against her principles?

Yes, that is exactly what I said and how I meant to say it, even though I did not write it that way and you had to twist it all up to figure out what I really meant.

Good job, very intelligent you are.

I do not understand why you would bring your daughter into this conversation but if you would like to make her the topic tell us more about her.

Well, YOU are the one who seems to want to speak up and say we are forcing our daughter to live against her principles. You have set yourself up as her (and other children of gay couples) spokesperson. Tell us more about how our daughter is being forced to live against her principles.

You are liar, you brought up your daughter not me. I have yet to say anything about your daughter. So again if you want to discuss your daughter in detail, first quit making things up and attributing them to me and second tell us the details about your daughter so we can discuss her.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Innocent children adopted by gays will have their minds forever corrupted.

 

[elektra]

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Now you get it, a 3 year old can not make a decisions about something they have not learned, hence you will be forcing a homosexual lifestyle on that child, a lifestyle they may or may not choose later in life.

I knew you would come around.

 

[Skylar]

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Now you get it, a 3 year old can not make a decisions about something they have not learned, hence you will be forcing a homosexual lifestyle on that child, a lifestyle they may or may not choose later in life.

But what is the harm of the 'homosexual lifestyle'....which is apparently everyday life. Eating lunch. Going to get the carwashed. Going to birthday parties. Watching a movie. While gay.

What about any of that is abusive?

I knew you would come around.

Yeah, you're still stuck at square 1 with the whole 'abuse' angle. You've never been able to factually establish it. And I'm still chuckling about your claim to speak for 99% of all people. And 100% of all children.

 

[elektra]

I for one could not imagine how vile the attacks would become. Outright lies about what I say, stating I am describing sex graphically as well as talking about peoples personal relationships with their daughter. It certainly is a dangerous game, to discuss this with such irrational people.

Seriously, you people must bait people with your family? You must lie about what is buried in the posts? Much of what this conversation should entail is too repulsive to posted. Much of what should be discussed is graphic and disgusting.

Of course the idiots will think that I stated their sexual proclivity is disgusting, what is disgusting is the physiology of how non-sexual organs of the body will be used for sexual gratification.

 

[Skylar]

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Innocent children adopted by gays will have their minds forever corrupted.

Says who?

There's a whole lot of personal opinion backed by a heaping mound of jack shit in this thread.

 

[Skylar]

I for one could not imagine how vile the attacks would become. Outright lies about what I say, stating I am describing sex graphically as well as talking about peoples personal relationships with their daughter. It certainly is a dangerous game, to discuss this with such irrational people.

Seriously, you people must bait people with your family? You must lie about what is buried in the posts? Much of what this conversation should entail is too repulsive to posted. Much of what should be discussed is graphic and disgusting.

Of course the idiots will think that I stated their sexual proclivity is disgusting, what is disgusting is the physiology of how non-sexual organs of the body will be used for sexual gratification.

You've been saying some pretty awful things about gays with families. Does this victimhood of yours only work in one direction.....or are you perpetrating quite of bit of what you claim to be a victim of?

And what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Syriusly]

You apparently do not know how our government works. State constitutions cannot override Federal Constitutional guarantees. For example, a state cannot ignore the 2nd amendment any more than it can ignore the 14th amendment.

And yet several States and local governments repeatedly violate the 2nd amendment, and liberal assholes applaud it.

How does this federal judge propose to enforce her decision if the probate judges refuse to cooperate? Those judges are elected officials, not appointed ones.

And what happens if the States violate the 2nd Amendment?

Someone sues them- like what happened in this case in Alabama- and a court decides whether or not the 2nd Amendment is being violated.

Voters in San Francisco voted a gun ban- and the court overturned it.

Conservative assholes applaud the courts when they agree with the ruling, and call them tyrants when they don't.

I applaud the court when they do their fucking job, which is to clarify, not create or destroy. And the courts seem to be doing a hell of a job in NYC of protecting my gun rights, considering the local judges laugh at any attempt to enforce said gun rights via lawsuits.

Like I said- conservative assholes applaud the courts when they disagree, and call them tyrants when they don't- thanks for confirming my claim.

Look, there it is, the bigot denigrates and calls people derogatory names to win politically, then stereotypes the conservatives reaction to the courts.

Thanks for confirming what we all see, you do not think rationally.

LOL....what i find really fricken hilarious about your post is that when I use the term:
'conservative assholes'- I was responding to a post that referred to 'liberal assholes'.

Which post did you decide was a bigoted post? Well mine of course......lol....homophobic bigots like yourself are a hoot.

 

[bodecea]

Nonsense.

No one is being 'forced' to do anything.

Homosexuals adopting children forces children to live against the child's principles.

You are saying that our straight daughter is being forced to live against her principles?

Yes, that is exactly what I said and how I meant to say it, even though I did not write it that way and you had to twist it all up to figure out what I really meant.

Good job, very intelligent you are.

I do not understand why you would bring your daughter into this conversation but if you would like to make her the topic tell us more about her.

Well, YOU are the one who seems to want to speak up and say we are forcing our daughter to live against her principles. You have set yourself up as her (and other children of gay couples) spokesperson. Tell us more about how our daughter is being forced to live against her principles.

You are liar, you brought up your daughter not me. I have yet to say anything about your daughter. So again if you want to discuss your daughter in detail, first quit making things up and attributing them to me and second tell us the details about your daughter so we can discuss her.

My daughter is one of those children you seem to think you have the right to speak for. Now you've been called on it and call ME a liar? Tell us more about what my daughter wants and doesn't want. You're the self-appointed spokesperson.

 

[elektra]

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Now you get it, a 3 year old can not make a decisions about something they have not learned, hence you will be forcing a homosexual lifestyle on that child, a lifestyle they may or may not choose later in life.

But what is the harm of the 'homosexual lifestyle'....which is apparently everyday life. Eating lunch. Going to get the carwashed. Going to birthday parties. Watching a movie. While gay.

What about any of that is abusive?

I knew you would come around.

Yeah, you're still stuck at square 1 with the whole 'abuse' angle. You've never been able to factually establish it. And I'm still chuckling about your claim to speak for 99% of all people. And 100% of all children.

Eating is not a lifestyle, Washing the car is not a lifestyle. Watching movies is not a lifestyle.

You simply can not bring yourself to telling the truth or including anything remotely relating to homosexuality into your narrative.

Then you must cherry pick my post to another and add it to your quote, as if we are having that particular discussion, again why can you not be truthful?

You do not think 100% of all children want a mother and a father?

 

[bodecea]

I for one could not imagine how vile the attacks would become. Outright lies about what I say, stating I am describing sex graphically as well as talking about peoples personal relationships with their daughter. It certainly is a dangerous game, to discuss this with such irrational people.

Seriously, you people must bait people with your family? You must lie about what is buried in the posts? Much of what this conversation should entail is too repulsive to posted. Much of what should be discussed is graphic and disgusting.

Of course the idiots will think that I stated their sexual proclivity is disgusting, what is disgusting is the physiology of how non-sexual organs of the body will be used for sexual gratification.

You seem to dwell quite a bit on what gays do in bed. Do you dwell as much on what straight couples do in bed?

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, but before they could make a choice you must explain to a three year old what it means to be two homosexual men.
Is that your idea, to teach what homosexuality is to 3 year old children?

Do you spend time explaining what it means to be a heterosexual man and woman?

To who?

To 3 year old children....such as in your post.

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

Every 3 year old adopted by parents is put into a situation not of their choosing.

Every single one.

Whether the child is black being adopted by whites, born of jews, being adopted by evangelical Christians, or abandoned by heterosexual parents and adopted by a homosexual who offers a home with financial and emotional support- the 3 year old child has no choice in the matter.

 

[Syriusly]

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Now you get it, a 3 year old can not make a decisions about something they have not learned, hence you will be forcing a homosexual lifestyle on that child, a lifestyle they may or may not choose later in life.

But what is the harm of the 'homosexual lifestyle'....which is apparently everyday life. Eating lunch. Going to get the carwashed. Going to birthday parties. Watching a movie. While gay.

What about any of that is abusive?

I knew you would come around.

Yeah, you're still stuck at square 1 with the whole 'abuse' angle. You've never been able to factually establish it. And I'm still chuckling about your claim to speak for 99% of all people. And 100% of all children.

Eating is not a lifestyle, Washing the car is not a lifestyle. Watching movies is not a lifestyle.

You simply can not bring yourself to telling the truth or including anything remotely relating to homosexuality into your narrative.

Then you must cherry pick my post to another and add it to your quote, as if we are having that particular discussion, again why can you not be truthful?

You do not think 100% of all children want a mother and a father?

100% of all children waiting for adoption wants a parent- or parents who commit to raising them with love and emotional and financial support.

 

[mdk]

I for one could not imagine how vile the attacks would become. Outright lies about what I say, stating I am describing sex graphically as well as talking about peoples personal relationships with their daughter. It certainly is a dangerous game, to discuss this with such irrational people.

Seriously, you people must bait people with your family? You must lie about what is buried in the posts? Much of what this conversation should entail is too repulsive to posted. Much of what should be discussed is graphic and disgusting.

Of course the idiots will think that I stated their sexual proclivity is disgusting, what is disgusting is the physiology of how non-sexual organs of the body will be used for sexual gratification.

You have stated some pretty nasty things about gay families and yet you managed to perpetrate yourself as a victim. Well done. It must be terribly hard to type with that cross on your back.

 

[elektra]

And yet several States and local governments repeatedly violate the 2nd amendment, and liberal assholes applaud it.

How does this federal judge propose to enforce her decision if the probate judges refuse to cooperate? Those judges are elected officials, not appointed ones.

And what happens if the States violate the 2nd Amendment?

Someone sues them- like what happened in this case in Alabama- and a court decides whether or not the 2nd Amendment is being violated.

Voters in San Francisco voted a gun ban- and the court overturned it.

Conservative assholes applaud the courts when they agree with the ruling, and call them tyrants when they don't.

I applaud the court when they do their fucking job, which is to clarify, not create or destroy. And the courts seem to be doing a hell of a job in NYC of protecting my gun rights, considering the local judges laugh at any attempt to enforce said gun rights via lawsuits.

Like I said- conservative assholes applaud the courts when they disagree, and call them tyrants when they don't- thanks for confirming my claim.

Look, there it is, the bigot denigrates and calls people derogatory names to win politically, then stereotypes the conservatives reaction to the courts.

Thanks for confirming what we all see, you do not think rationally.

LOL....what i find really fricken hilarious about your post is that when I use the term:
'conservative assholes'- I was responding to a post that referred to 'liberal assholes'.

Which post did you decide was a bigoted post? Well mine of course......lol....homophobic bigots like yourself are a hoot.

homophobic? It is the bigot that stereotypes all that are opposed to adoption of children by homosexuals as homophobic.

Can I not be against the adoption of children by homosexuals and be a homosexual at the same time.

So you see, maybe I know something about me that you do not, hence I see that you stereotype me by one position I take, not by who I am. It is the bigot who judges without knowing, you judge me as homophobic yet I could be a closet homosexual.

You know so little and assume so much when you make derogatory personal statements about me.

 

[bodecea]

An interesting question. And remember, it has to be in the detail that Electra insists gays describe homosexual sex.

Who would explain something as graphic as any kind of intercourse with a 3 year old?

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Now you get it, a 3 year old can not make a decisions about something they have not learned, hence you will be forcing a homosexual lifestyle on that child, a lifestyle they may or may not choose later in life.

But what is the harm of the 'homosexual lifestyle'....which is apparently everyday life. Eating lunch. Going to get the carwashed. Going to birthday parties. Watching a movie. While gay.

What about any of that is abusive?

I knew you would come around.

Yeah, you're still stuck at square 1 with the whole 'abuse' angle. You've never been able to factually establish it. And I'm still chuckling about your claim to speak for 99% of all people. And 100% of all children.

Eating is not a lifestyle, Washing the car is not a lifestyle. Watching movies is not a lifestyle.

You simply can not bring yourself to telling the truth or including anything remotely relating to homosexuality into your narrative.

Then you must cherry pick my post to another and add it to your quote, as if we are having that particular discussion, again why can you not be truthful?

You do not think 100% of all children want a mother and a father?

You have to show us any 3 year olds who are forced to be homosexual. That would definitely be child abuse of the highest order. Other than that, you are full of it.

How do you feel about 3 year olds being adopted into a fundamental christianity lifestyle? Or about 3 year olds being adopted into a rich lifestyle. Or 3 year olds being adopted into a Kansas farm lifestyle?

 

[elektra]

Who would put a three year old in a situation not of their choosing is what I stated, very different than your fantasy that you attribute to me.

So three year olds get to make such decisions in your world? Most 3 year olds would choose to live with Mickey Mouse.

Now you get it, a 3 year old can not make a decisions about something they have not learned, hence you will be forcing a homosexual lifestyle on that child, a lifestyle they may or may not choose later in life.

But what is the harm of the 'homosexual lifestyle'....which is apparently everyday life. Eating lunch. Going to get the carwashed. Going to birthday parties. Watching a movie. While gay.

What about any of that is abusive?

I knew you would come around.

Yeah, you're still stuck at square 1 with the whole 'abuse' angle. You've never been able to factually establish it. And I'm still chuckling about your claim to speak for 99% of all people. And 100% of all children.

Eating is not a lifestyle, Washing the car is not a lifestyle. Watching movies is not a lifestyle.

You simply can not bring yourself to telling the truth or including anything remotely relating to homosexuality into your narrative.

Then you must cherry pick my post to another and add it to your quote, as if we are having that particular discussion, again why can you not be truthful?

You do not think 100% of all children want a mother and a father?

100% of all children waiting for adoption wants a parent- or parents who commit to raising them with love and emotional and financial support.

Now that is a pretty good lie, how can a orphan want a homosexual parent if you are going to hide that truth from them.

Hell, some orphans do not want to be adopted at all, some do, some want to die, some start doing drugs as teenagers, many become alcoholic, and you on your high horse deny any of that can happen in a homosexual home.

 

[Syriusly]

You're confused. Its not Federal law that the judge is applying. Its constitutional rights that the judge is guaranteeing. And State constitutions are most definitely subject to constitutional guarantees.

It is if it violates the rights and privileges of US citizens. Or applies the law unequally to any US citizen.

As the rights guaranteed in the US constitution trump any State constitution.

You are the one who is confused, maybe you should learn the differences between state and federal law, and also how those laws can and can't be applied. Let me say this again. If it is in their state constitution, it would need to be voted on to ratify. A judge cannot override constitutional law. In your liberal dream world where hopes and wishes overrule reality that works. In the real world there are checks and balances.

And again, it is only unconstitutional if it violates the constitution. And when it is concerning state law, and state authorities the state constitution applies. When dealing with federal entities, the federal constitution applies.

You apparently do not know how our government works. State constitutions cannot override Federal Constitutional guarantees. For example, a state cannot ignore the 2nd amendment any more than it can ignore the 14th amendment.

And yet several States and local governments repeatedly violate the 2nd amendment, and liberal assholes applaud it.

How does this federal judge propose to enforce her decision if the probate judges refuse to cooperate? Those judges are elected officials, not appointed ones.

And those violations get, correctly, shot down by the Federal courts. And I am a liberal gun owner and applaud any court upholding our rights under the 2nd Amendment.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


I still can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. How is that an example of the courts defending my rights?

Here is the thing- I understand that you believe that NY law is unconstitutional.

But without the Federal courts having jurisidiction- you have no recourse at all- New York could pass laws telling you to turn in all of your firearms at the nearest police station- and you would have no legal recourse.

So what is the recourse in your case? Going to court. If the courts disagree- well then they disagree with you- like the State of NY disagrees with you regarding the constitutionality of the law. You can attempt to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court- which has overturned many gun laws. But if the SOTC disagrees- well then you have had your day in court- and under our Constitution you have to live with the law.