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

[Montrovant]

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.

Ah, so you think anything which involves "private intimate choices" is a sexual orientation, or at least that the US legal system defines sexual orientation that way?

 

[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.

Ah, so you think anything which involves "private intimate choices" is a sexual orientation, or at least that the US legal system defines sexual orientation that way?

I'm going to break this to you as gently as I can. If the premise of your entire position is "polyamory and incest won't affect Obergefell because those two things aren't sexual orientations", you're fucked.

As I have said before, folks in LGBT calling themselves sexually oriented "away from hetero" when their males are using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas and their females are enjoying sex regularly with dildos is A GRAY AREA of "sexual orientation' AT BEST. So in the interest of equality, (leaning on the 14th Amendment here), if your cult gets to define a rigid "sexual orientation" based on "intimate choices" when clearly there are some closeted gray areas going on, then you CERTAINLY DON'T have a monopoly on the phrase "sexual orientation". Other people can define their gray-area kinks similarly and thus, have the same protections you got in Obergefell.

As we all know, you cannot exclude people from marriage based on their sexual orientation. But states still are allowed to. There's Judge Moore's defense in a nutshell. Just one of many we've discussed here; including (but not exhaustive I'm sure)

1. Ginsburg presiding over Obergefell months after she advertised to the world how she would vote on it...while it was pending in her Court. (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal USSC 2009)

2. Kagan, same thing by presiding over gay weddings as Ginsburg did, as an embodiment of federal "impartiality" as Obergefell was pending to their Court.

3. That children had no representation at the Obergefell Hearing to their implicit and expressed (Obergefell USSC 2015) unique and thousands-years-old established share in the marriage contract & its benefits (chief of which for them: BOTH a mother and father). (Infancy Doctrine & contracts & New York vs Ferber USSC 1982)

4. That just some but not other sexual orientations or "intimate choice lifestyles" may marry. (14th Amendment)

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Except that is not what the Court actually said- apples and oranges again.

Now- why do you think that high school boys are all polyamorous not heterosexuals because they are attracted to multiple women?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Ah, so you think anything which involves "private intimate choices" is a sexual orientation, or at least that the US legal system defines sexual orientation that way?

I'm going to break this to you as gently as I can. If the premise of your entire position is "polyamory and incest won't affect Obergefell because those two things aren't sexual orientations", you're fucked.)

Not sure why you think Montrovant would be 'fucked'

Obergefell is in effect in all 50 states- so same gender couples can marry in all 50 states.

Obergefell is immaterial regarding polyamorous marriage and incestuous marriage because Obergefell is not related to either.

We are merely laughing at how you are inventing sexual orientations to try to build a fictitouous case.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Polygamists and incest and other sexual orientations will be happy to know that Syriusly. It's been a long wait for their orientations too you know..

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Ah, so you think anything which involves "private intimate choices" is a sexual orientation, or at least that the US legal system defines sexual orientation that way?

I'm going to break this to you as gently as I can. If the premise of your entire position is "polyamory and incest won't affect Obergefell because those two things aren't sexual orientations", you're fucked.

As I have said before, folks in LGBT calling themselves sexually oriented "away from hetero" when their males are using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas and their females are enjoying sex regularly with dildos is A GRAY AREA of "sexual orientation' AT BEST. So in the interest of equality, (leaning on the 14th Amendment here), if your cult gets to define a rigid "sexual orientation" based on "intimate choices" when clearly there are some closeted gray areas going on, then you CERTAINLY DON'T have a monopoly on the phrase "sexual orientation". Other people can define their gray-area kinks similarly and thus, have the same protections you got in Obergefell.

As we all know, you cannot exclude people from marriage based on their sexual orientation. But states still are allowed to. There's Judge Moore's defense in a nutshell. Just one of many we've discussed here; including (but not exhaustive I'm sure)

1. Ginsburg presiding over Obergefell months after she advertised to the world how she would vote on it...while it was pending in her Court. (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal USSC 2009)

2. Kagan, same thing by presiding over gay weddings as Ginsburg did, as an embodiment of federal "impartiality" as Obergefell was pending to their Court.

3. That children had no representation at the Obergefell Hearing to their implicit and expressed (Obergefell USSC 2015) unique and thousands-years-old established share in the marriage contract & its benefits (chief of which for them: BOTH a mother and father). (Infancy Doctrine & contracts & New York vs Ferber USSC 1982)

4. That just some but not other sexual orientations or "intimate choice lifestyles" may marry. (14th Amendment)

You can call sexual orientation a gray area all you like. That is only in your own mind.

The courts have not ruled that sexual orientation follows the rules or definitions that you use.

You have a record of total, abject failure when it comes to predicting or interpreting laws and court decisions. Why would anyone expect you to have the slightest clue now?

People aren't excluded from marriage based on sexual orientation. They may be excluded based on number of marriage participants or age and ability to consent of the participants.

 

[mdk]

^^ Polygamists and incest and other sexual orientations will be happy to know that Syriusly. It's been a long wait for their orientations too you know..

What wait? According to you, they can already marry as a result of Obergefell.

Using your standard, any guy or girl that is at attracted to more than one person is a polygamist. lol. Good thing nobody is still bound by whatever legal shit you throw against the wall.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Polygamists and incest and other sexual orientations will be happy to know that Syriusly. It's been a long wait for their orientations too you know..

The reply button is still a challenge for you Silhouette I see.

Well I defer to your vast knowledge of what makes Polygamists and those who are involved in incest 'happy'.

But meanwhile- Obergefell has nothing to do with any of those- and same gender couples are getting married in all 50 state.

 

[Silhouette]

You can call sexual orientation a gray area all you like. That is only in your own mind.

Only if 100% of all lesbians never used a dildo in sex. And only if 100% of gay men aren't attracted to feminine qualities in the "bottom" gays they go for (including that orifice down under that functions as an AV...what we livestock people call "artificial vagina"). Then yeah, no gray area on "homosexual orientation"..

 

[Montrovant]

You can call sexual orientation a gray area all you like. That is only in your own mind.

Only if 100% of all lesbians never used a dildo in sex. And only if 100% of gay men aren't attracted to feminine qualities in the "bottom" gays they go for (including that orifice down under that functions as an AV...what we livestock people call "artificial vagina"). Then yeah, no gray area on "homosexual orientation"..

Again, sexual orientation and sex acts are not the same thing.

Having anal sex does not make a man gay. Avoiding anal sex does not make a man straight. Using a dildo does not make a woman straight. Avoiding using a dildo does not make a woman gay.

You often like to say that the courts cannot discriminate because they find a particular act "icky", yet that seems to be all you can focus on.

 

[Silhouette]

You can call sexual orientation a gray area all you like. That is only in your own mind.

Only if 100% of all lesbians never used a dildo in sex. And only if 100% of gay men aren't attracted to feminine qualities in the "bottom" gays they go for (including that orifice down under that functions as an AV...what we livestock people call "artificial vagina"). Then yeah, no gray area on "homosexual orientation"..

Having anal sex does not make a man gay. Avoiding anal sex does not make a man straight. Using a dildo does not make a woman straight. Avoiding using a dildo does not make a woman gay.

You often like to say that the courts cannot discriminate because they find a particular act "icky", yet that seems to be all you can focus on.

Yes but having anal sex is seeking of an orifice between a person's legs. You know, like an artificial vagina. What's a 'gay' guy doing seeking that out.? And a woman "lesbian" craving a dildo? I mean hello, come out of the friggin' closet why don't you?

Yeah, "no gray areas" at all in "homosexual orientation"...lol..

 

[mdk]

You can call sexual orientation a gray area all you like. That is only in your own mind.

Only if 100% of all lesbians never used a dildo in sex. And only if 100% of gay men aren't attracted to feminine qualities in the "bottom" gays they go for (including that orifice down under that functions as an AV...what we livestock people call "artificial vagina"). Then yeah, no gray area on "homosexual orientation"..

Having anal sex does not make a man gay. Avoiding anal sex does not make a man straight. Using a dildo does not make a woman straight. Avoiding using a dildo does not make a woman gay.

You often like to say that the courts cannot discriminate because they find a particular act "icky", yet that seems to be all you can focus on.

Yes but having anal sex is seeking of an orifice between a person's legs. You know, like an artificial vagina. What's a 'gay' guy doing seeking that out.?

What is it with your creepy obsession with gay sex acts? What business is it of yours anyway, Mrs. Kravitz?

 

[Montrovant]

You can call sexual orientation a gray area all you like. That is only in your own mind.

Only if 100% of all lesbians never used a dildo in sex. And only if 100% of gay men aren't attracted to feminine qualities in the "bottom" gays they go for (including that orifice down under that functions as an AV...what we livestock people call "artificial vagina"). Then yeah, no gray area on "homosexual orientation"..

Having anal sex does not make a man gay. Avoiding anal sex does not make a man straight. Using a dildo does not make a woman straight. Avoiding using a dildo does not make a woman gay.

You often like to say that the courts cannot discriminate because they find a particular act "icky", yet that seems to be all you can focus on.

Yes but having anal sex is seeking of an orifice between a person's legs. You know, like an artificial vagina. What's a 'gay' guy doing seeking that out.? And a woman "lesbian" craving a dildo? I mean hello, come out of the friggin' closet why don't you?

Yeah, "no gray areas" at all in "homosexual orientation"...lol..

What brings you physical pleasure is not the same as who you are attracted to. Have you never heard jokes and stereotypes of men wanting to put their dicks in any available hole? Are you unaware that heterosexual men and women sometimes have anal sex? Do you think gay men should not have sex because it somehow puts their orientation in question?

This is some asinine reasoning, even by your low standards.

 

[Silhouette]

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

 

[Montrovant]

^^ 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.

 

[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?

 

[mdk]

^^ 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?

Besides your own imagination, where are polygamists claiming that polygamy is a sexual orientation? The Brown family is claiming their religious freedoms are being violated. Or do you and Kim Davis have a monopoly on religious freedoms? lol

 

[Montrovant]

^^ 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. It would be like saying helmets are a kind of sport. Sure, some sports use helmets, but the two are different types of things. Sexual orientation is about the type of people one is attracted to. 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.

Oh, and there is a difference between judging a person and using the definition of a word.

 

[mdk]

^^ 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. It would be like saying helmets are a kind of sport. Sure, some sports use helmets, but the two are different types of things. Sexual orientation is about the type of people one is attracted to. 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.

Oh, and there is a difference between judging a person and using the definition of a word.

Don't bother. Sil thinks if she just keeps typing 'artificial vaginas' and 'lesbian dildos' that polygamy will magically become a sexual orientation.

 

[Seawytch]

^^ 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. It would be like saying helmets are a kind of sport. Sure, some sports use helmets, but the two are different types of things. Sexual orientation is about the type of people one is attracted to. 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.

Oh, and there is a difference between judging a person and using the definition of a word.

Don't bother. Sil thinks if she just keeps typing 'artificial vaginas' and 'lesbian dildos' that polygamy will magically become a sexual orientation.

I don't think that's the real reason Sil is fixated on them...