In my un-educated opinion and based on what I have read about the formation of our country any marriage be it gay straight polyandrous polygamist between man woman dog grandma snake chinchilla whatever shouldn't be recognized in any legal sense this shouldn't be an issue at all politically the only reason it is an issue is because of tax benefits seems like they tax what they feel is bad and credit what they believe to be right sounds like social engineering via taxes and that is fucked up!
Gay people ruin lives! I have a gay couple living 3 houses down from me and hey decided to adopt a 9 year old child from the orphanage 4 years ago. The kid went to the same school as me and he was bullied to such a point that i started to think he might commit suicide. The kid was so depressed that he called child support and made up a fake report of his dads beating him and insisted that he wanted to go bak to the orphanage. They went to court and the child got sent back to the orphanage.
Gay people ruin lives! I have a gay couple living 3 houses down from me and hey decided to adopt a 9 year old child from the orphanage 4 years ago. The kid went to the same school as me and he was bullied to such a point that i started to think he might commit suicide. The kid was so depressed that he called child support and made up a fake report of his dads beating him and insisted that he wanted to go bak to the orphanage. They went to court and the child got sent back to the orphanage.
WARNING!!!! When some people are young they maybe attacked by Satan in their dream and it fills them with darkness leaving an everlasting imprint on their life as a result the person feels vulnerable in their heart. Because of this certain events happen deliberately to change their sexuality by attracting suffering and unhappiness. It is these terrible events orchestrated by Satan that makes people question their sexuality leaving them emotionally vulnerable to homosexuality.
@TheShootTruth10 Your message is both rude and unintelligible. If you would write your message again and without the insults, we can understand you more clearly and believably.
How about this idea, all jokes aside. Just add a name to the constitution and define it as such. "Gayiage" - Between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That solves everything. Marriage is between a man and a woman, one cannot change that.
@67bandit67 That would face the limitations that "Civil Unions" now face. those 1038 rights enjoyed by straight married couples are written in all those laws with that word, "Marriage", "Married" etc.
@SisterUnity Just an f.y.i. Marriage is not enjoyed a lot statistically speaking. Been there, done that. It's just a legal document that gives one of the spouses a chance to stick it to the other one real good at "any" time anywhere. If one is worried about material things such as a car or house then make out a will for $250.00. If one breaks up just make out a new will. There are no perks in marriage.
Hey gay marriage is a great thing. I mean the constitution dictates equal rights for every citizn. Thats why it is unconstitutional to deny gay people marriage, as well as a mother or father who falls in love and wants to marry their adult son, or daughter(incest). Maybe the mother-son couple would want to adopt kids too!!! Its not like we control who we fall in love with! And why is polygamy illegal? consenting adults should be able to marry as many partners as they want
I wonder how you feel about Sharia Law being taught in so many mosques in the USA, Sister Unity? I believe after much research that Sharia Law Islamists in Europe, Canada, the USA, etc. are attempting to do what the Catholic Church did centuries ago - that is, submit the world to itself.
I am speaking of the facist political system of Sharia in Islam, not the religion itself, although in Islam they cannot be separated.
What do you think this means for your community? Are you worried?
@SarahRachel59 I'd be worried if there was a Sharia party poised to win a majority in Congress. As yet, there isn't any such party exerting great political or social influence in any state legislature. In fact I have not heard of any Sharia election victories in any US municiple elections. Please let me know if there are any.
@SisterUnity Have you seen Notheoriticalbullshit latest video on pro 8. watch the comments by this homophobic gay hating bigotred named theDracoIX. wow it's breath taking. he dont have the guts to put up a video so he fills up coment section with his retoric bigotry showing who the real fag is. I sustpect he's one of those repressed in the closet gays who liberates his feelings by attacking that which he is. lol. what a cool art you got on your face, bro.
And we're almost there! There is no intelligent way to cover this Injustice of so many years: Americans being denied a simple, but basic civil right. The Supreme Court Justices are soon facing their Brown vs. Board of Education landmark decision. There will be much frustration, no matter which way the Scale tips. peace to you: a happy marriage for all who would seek it!
@CynthiaSwallows - Not actually a transexual clown. A drag nun. No surgery, no hormone pills, no Ringling Brothers. Just 31 years of AIDS prevention and care, LGBT charity fundraising, Human Rights activism, and upliftment of our constituents in 15 US Cities and 11 countries on 4 continents.
Wiki "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" for more details.
@CynthiaSwallows Hi! some info: Actually quite a lot of people take us seriously. For example, worldwide, the various Sister Convents give out well over $100,000 to local charities. For more information, you can look at thesisters dawt org or Wikipedia The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
your earrings are cute <3 and everything you're saying makes total sense. Gays should have just as many rights as heterosexuals; the constitution is very clear.
I think gays have way more rights than 50 years ago. The only right they don't have is marriage and thats is most states. If you move to massachusetts for example, a gay person is treated quite equally to any other person.
It's true; 50 years ago Americans who are gay were jailed for kissing each other, among a host of other things. You could be fired from your job simply for being suspected of being a gay person, and there was no legal recourse to object.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am assuming you are gay. You don't have to answer this if you feel offended or such, but do you as a gay person every have a "sexual liking" (sorry I don't know how to word it right) to a straight person of the opposite sex? I mean there have been times where even straight people have gotten that feeling towards someone of the same sex. And I am not talking about permanent feeling towards, just a quick temporary one.
Hello! It is a fair and very good question, thank you for asking so honestly. I am very, very gay. While I have not had more than one or two quick attractions to a woman, both of which stopped immediately upon realizing she has a vagina, I know many men who live as gay who have had many and longer attractions to women.
The real truth is that sexuality is widely diverse with most people having a combination of attractions, even though a majority of us choose one or the other for living.
Why so much hate and telling people who are not the same as you what they can and can not do?? OK then I am opposed to straight legal unions - there fuck it, if I can't be able to have the asme legal rights then neither should you straight folks.
gays will never have equal rights! everytime you meet them they cause trouble by bitching and talking about people behing their backs and cusing unecissery trouble! look at big brother. All fuckin wierdo motherfuckin cunts who are just wannbees and cause trouble!! good example cos thats the way they are. They have all these gay marches now too cos they have nothing better to do. I mean lok at the state of the cunt in this video, if you were sent out looking like that you would hide woundt ya!!
1) Gays have equal rights in Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Canada, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Spain and South Africa.
2) One finds wierdo motherfuckin cunts in every social grouping. Certainly a lot of them on youtube, eh?
3) The parades are used to convert your infant children with secret ray guns hidden in our panties.
You shouldn't be so hateful. The sister has done nothing to harm you in anyway yet you can feel nothing but contempt. State your views, but please at least be respectful. I recently discovered sister unity and hes actually been quite an inspiration in a rather difficult time in my life, and just so you know I'm not gay, it makes no difference. I wish I had the materials and the know how to make myself look like that because I would wear it all day tomorrow.
OK. fair enough. What particulars of my performance here make it self righteous rather than righteous or full of conviction and confidence? What are the specifics you observe that make me appear to be doing this for attention rather than expressing ideas and beliefs or making a message or even just making a video the sake of making something?
I felt that you where full of arrogance and your messages really meant nothing, that you where just trying to prove nothing by being different. but now that i watch some of your videos i released there is some meaning behind it. I was fast on my judgment. My apologies.
I'm Pretty sure homesexualism has always been rejected and frowned upon by the catholic religion so don't even bring nuns into this you really need to read the bible and i can say this in good confidence a man should only be with a woman and vice-versa
I must tell you as a Hindu, I do not feel I need to read the Bible, but thank you anyway. I also am as aware of the general acceptance and the historically important role gay people played in their societies worldwide before the increase of Catholic influence as I am of the church's repudiation and in many cases eradication of it.
I will say what I like when responding to vulgarities.
sorry gay people aren't important they have fucked up heads but i'll do some respect here and say i believe this because i personally was close to a few people who were homosexual some of them were perfectly normal but the ones that were full fruity about getting it on with another person of the same sex were fucked up in every aspect of what they said there was no logic involved. do me a favor and think about "Perception is reality" and tell me what you think i'm anxious to hear a response
It sounds like the fucked up gay people you knew were... fucked up people. Gay may have been just a context in which they expressed what would have been f-ed up anyway. What was your experience of the gay people who you were saying were perfectly normal?
What specifically do you want me to apply "Perception is reality" to here? What I think about it will change depending on the context.
about the perception is reality statement what is your view on how it can be used in whatever you believe do you think it's useful do you believe the statement is "true." When i used to have friends who were just really good friends but i had no idea they were gay it was never apparent and it always gave me the impact that the homosexuals who actually were out there about their sexual preferences were crazy, when dealing with anything they had little logic in thier thought process.
I too have known/ know people, gay and straight, who are operating on their own perception of what is real or true... and it does not seem like much of what I know to be real, you know? I think those are just people with big egos or who are spoiled, or insecure, or just a little nuts.
Then there are people who are just naturally different, even colorful or flamboyant. We might not LIKE what they are about, but that's just personal differences. They might be OK people, just really really really different from what we like or are used to, or believe in.
some people in the US are legally able to marry the person the love and with whom they live in a long term, committed relationship, recognized by the state, while others are not so able, by law. Some Americans are allowed by law, other Americans are not allowed by law.
My friend, it's OK. Only 10% of men at the most are gay men. and much fewer of those men cross gender lines as I do. There are an overwhelming abundance of manly men and always will be. I rejoice in the diversity of my brothers!
Hey Sister Unity, I love the look BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Gays should have the right to marry. While certain theocon groups may fume, laws like DOMA violate at least three ammendments to US Constitution that I can point out: 1st(separation of church and state), 5th (due process of law), 14th (equal protection under the law. Someone has got to grow a set and challenge NOMA in SCOYUS on these grounds. The US Constitution, NOT THE BIBLE is the highest law of our land!
And yet, this biblical fundamentalist don't see the US Constitution in that logical sense, nor will they care to see it unless its convinient to their whims. I believe that the best way to fight fire with fire is by finding the loop holes in the laws and find ways to patch em up before this religious fundamentalst do, so we can still continue having a secular system, otherwise, we best be prepared for the worse case scenario: A civil war.
Either ban divorce or make all marriages illegal and only allow civil unions - religion has no place in government because its only used to persecute others.
**( only that institution which has both the male and female sex as requisite components is not in contradiction with the Constitution NOR the Equal Protection Clause.
By the same excerpt, Gay people may also be a constitutionally sound categorization and thereby protected as a recognized minority group by the Constitution and courts. The California State Supreme Court did so in "In re Marriage Cases".
SisterUnity: ~Reference~ Constitutional amendment I, IV, IX, XIII, XIV, XIX; Civil Rights, Section 1981, of Title 42, (Equal Rights law), 42 U.S.C s1983, & 2000a; 43 U.S.C. s 1985, 42 U.S.C s1994, 18 U.S.C s 241 &242. end reference; Hope this can help fight haters and at the same time vetos some rediculous bills or laws. P.S. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!! p.s. greetings and Salutations.
Supreme Court's application of the Equal Protection Clause includes--
"Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest."
You see the sex of an individual CAN be a CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND basis of categorization for a law. So the restriction of the definition of marriage to **(
If you want to preserve the santity of marriage you can do two things:
1.) Make "shotgun weddings illegal"
2.) Ban Divorce
This will not coerce people into marriage and will make people think twice about the decision to get married, and if they choose to get married it will be out of love and support. Not based on gender, coersion or any other form of hate.
The law of the US is supposed to serve and protect ALL the people and be served by the people and only for the people. The LGBT community should not be left aside to allow that streight families can live easier. The law should be made to protect everyone with all their rights and not a select group or even majority. There needs to be compromise rather than radicle bans, prohibitions, and controll of what grown adults do with their lives and how they wish to live their lives.
With accordance to the Constitution, amendment I, the statement doesn't incline rights to certain groups or individuals as well as amendment XIV, which clrealy states that "All persons born or naturalize in the unites states, .. are citizens ... "and "No state shall make or enforce anylaw which shall abridge privileges or immunities of citizens of the United states... " Yet by doing so, they would brake Amendment VIII,
- under 42 U.S.C s 1985: (1) (2) & (3); & 18 U.S.C s 241 & 242: ( conspiracy against rights), (Deprivation of rights under color of law),
Surprisingly ladies and gentlemen, you all have a case against haters that attempt to prevent rights to "Gays" by numerous acts that fall under this articles. Read and make your move now before the case goes cold.
Yes. "Cost" to the taxpayer in and of itself is not so much the problem as wasteful, inefficient use of state resources is. There will always be costs to the taxpayer. The problem is wasteful, inefficient costliness, and not so much cost per se.
OK. Thank you for writing it out for me. I think I understand now. You are opposed to equal rights for gay marriage for that reason. And you do not find that Amendment 14 Section 1 of the US Constitution supports an equal right for gays to marriage. OK.
I do believe differently, but thank you for a truly engaging debate.
I Adore you SisterUnity - your make-up is beautiful. So simple and palin - why is that some twist that piece of divine writing to meet their own prejudice? One day! One day!
but you are making a straw man agurement. by saying the rights should only be afford to those who can in your mind raise a family. if that is going to be you rationale for who can get married than it should be applied across the board evenly with some form of law demanding all married couple reproduce.
What straw man? The law draws imprecise lines all the time, for practical reasons. You can't go around force-testing fertility. That would violate the 4th Amendment, which is why a law "demanding all married couples reproduce" is unworkable.
By contrast, we already know that gays are biologically incapable of reproducing with each other, and that gays tend not to have children in general. No testing required. The law is able draw the line to exclude gays without practical worries.
see you are living in box and creating a straw man agruement. just because without a gay couple cannot raise a family doesn't negate the ability for gays to have children, whether biological through surogates and donors or adopting. gay have the same potienal to raising a family. just because we cannot do it without serious planning doesn't mean its less than a family.
actully there is a growing trend of gays having children. which will be come more and more as we become more aceepted.
Actually, it does negate the ability enough to mean that most gays tend not to have children. Only a very small minority of gays use surrogates and actually have children. In which case, still an inefficient use of state resources.
In addition, the state encourages the social unit best situated for raising and having children -- a mother and a father. The fact that some gays adopt or surrogate doesn't mean the state is obliged to encourage it. It may decline to do so, for policy reasons.
APA says homosexual couples are just as good and sometimes better than heterosexual couples at rasising children. once again the trend of gays with children is increasing. gay of my generation are more likely to adoptthan previous generations of gays. is it in the states best interst to leave these growing number of children at a disadvantage?
The APA is not the last word on the matter. Federal courts have repeatedly found that the studies are still in dispute. And where the research is in dispute, it follows that the state's rationale is plausible. Cherry picking APA studies that help only your side is not an argument for the implausibility of what the several states assert as a rationale.
And again, most gays tend not to have children. That means an inefficient use of resources.
you are using genernalations you can't back up. when saying "most gays..."
once again you dont' have a leg to stand on. gays have families, to deny them access to the same rights as straights is hurting them and their children ro whomever they claim as their family.
Generalizations I can't back up? So you're saying "most gays" do in fact have children? Who are you kidding? Even you don't believe that.
"We tend not to have children." - Amber Hollibaugh, senior strategist for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
The fact that SOME gays have children is no reason for the state to encourage it, just as the fact that SOME underaged drinkers can handle their alcohol is no reason for the state to lower the drinking age. You don't have a leg to stand on.
Only some straights have children when they marry? LOL. Now you're into tinfoil hat kooky territory. Don't waste my time with your fact-free statements claiming most gays have children -- statements that have no basis in reality.
again I have to warn you. I cannot allow your participation of you falsely quote other comment authors. altarboy4sin did not say "most gays have children". She said the trend of gay couples having children is increasing.
Stop manufacturing a pretext to ban my comments. If you want to, just do it, instead of making a fraudulent show of it. I did not "falsely quote" him. If he's challenging my statement that "most gays" do not have children, it logically follows that he believes that "most gays" do have children.
You can't disagree with my statement without asserting the alternative. If it is false that "most gays do not have children," then it must be the case that most gays do indeed have children. Basic math.
Underage drinkers are "real people" too. It doesn't change the fact that the law draws imprecise but optimal lines.
Nothing I say "disregards gay families with children." Those are taken into account by the very concept of optimality -- which acknowledges that the line drawn may be imprecise, but nevertheless justified on balance.
Likewise, the fact that there are polygamous families with children does not mean that we should recognize polygamous marriage. Are we "disregarding" them then?
There is nothing "odious" or "demeaning" about that comparison. The point is the same whether I use underaged drinkers, underaged drivers, or underaged voters to illustrate the point that the law draws imprecise lines. You're fixating on trifles.
Underage voters would have been a better comparison; let's use that one going forward. Certainly words matter. I'm sure you don't mean to insult. I believe you prefer to convince with logic.
Thank you very much for keeping to actual quotations.
To illustrate with an analogy, the fact that some drinkers under 21 are mature enough to handle their drink, doesn't mean that the state is obliged to lower the drinking age. Sure, some over 21 are still too immature to handle alcohol, and some under 21 are mature enough drinkers. The fact that some fall through the cracks on either side of the line is no reason to lower the drinking age.
The law draws what it we take to be optimum -- not precise -- lines. And optimality excludes gay marriage.
It is an analogy. I analogized laws drawing imprecise lines that exclude gay marriage from recognition to laws drawing imprecise lines that exclude underaged drinkers. I suggest you familiarize yourself with what "analogy" means.
I've been saying that people who are opposed to gay marriage have a way of twisting and distorting facts. These comment from sklanger absolutely prove my point.
Your concept of "optimality" as I understand your words, refers to the expense incurred by the State supporting gay marriages and their children, because, as you see it, fewer gay married couples raise children than straight married couples do I understand you correctly?
I ask because I wonder about the notion of "optimal". Should the state not support a divorced parent in any way? They fall out of what you described as the optimal circumstance for a child, living with mother and father. What about foster parents where one woman or one man raise a child? That takes state resources as well.
I believe you don't much like gay people because they are gay. I appears to me that this lies at the heart of your choice to pursue this debate.
Yes, keep questioning my motives. That just tells me that you have can't reply to the issues and see the need to attack me personally to shore up your argument. :)
The state does not continue to confer marital privileges on a divorced person. That's the whole point of a divorce. Foster parents who are optimally situated (i.e., married) receive marital benefits. If they aren't married, they don't. That's the point of marriage as a policy tool -- it uses incentives to encourage optimal unions.
Of course I question your motives. I think they are mistaken.
You feel attacked when I said you do not like gayness? Do you like Gayness? Are you seeking to discredit what I observe by accusing me of attacking you? Please let me know.
ah, ok, so the reason you disagree with gay marriage, though you like gay people and do not have any issue with homosexuality, is because it produces no children and costs the taxpayer money to support, by and large. Do I understand correctly?
OK. Could you state them for me here succinctly (and without the patronizing tone, if you please). I want to be sure I get them clearly, rather than picking them out of the text of our conversation.
ummmmmm skylanger...why does it even matter to you if gays OR polygamists get married? I mean, why shouldn't people who love each other be able to marry, share proporty, raise a family, and be recognized as married if they are in love and together anyways? Why deny them all those rights when they do all the things that married people do anyways? Gays raise children and live together, and so do polygomists...how would it effect you if it were legal? Or anyone for that matter?
It matters because diverting state resources to gay marriage is an inefficient use of resources. Since gays tend not to have children, and marriage is a policy tool meant to encourage the social unit best situated to having and raising children, gay marriages are a poor use of resources better spent on straight couples, who have a reproductive yield far in excess of gay couples. :)
ok list them. what services do the federal and state government provide to married couples that would be unfairly spent on homosexuals? and mind you there are gay couples that are rasing families.
"On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits."
"benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home..."
Most gay couples don't raise families. Ergo, inefficient use of resources to subsidize them.
and what about the millions of straight couples that marry and never reproduce? or the divorced couples that get married after their kids are grown and never reproduce? why are they allowed to praticipate in marriage since they aren't using the benefits in the manner wish it to be raised?
The proportion of straight couples who marry and reproduce are far in excess of those who marry and don't reproduce. The average reproductive yield of straight couples is therefore still far in excess to the average reproductive yield of gay couples. In which case straight marriage is still a far more efficient use of state resources than gay marriage.
The law draws bright lines for reasons of practicality. The fact that some fall through the cracks on either side of the line changes nothing.
I don't give a fuck what gay people tend to do! I want to have kids and raise a family just like anybody else! My mother raised 4 kids with good educations and morals and she's a LESBIEN! How dare you think that a generalization of gays such as not wishing to have kids should be placed upon the lives of every LGBT couple wishing to share a life together, kids or not!
Besides, it's not just us queers who don't always have kids! I WANT TO HAVE A FAMILY AND CHILDREN. like you said, marriage is the
tool to best help people raise children as a strong and thriving FAMILY. How the fuck can you honestly believe that that could help socioty when part of society is denied marital rights that shouldn't have to be debated! I am so PISSED that you st8 ppl think that your rights and rituals are more important or even more valid than the rights of the LGBT community or ANY other community for that matter! You should be ashamed of such a pathetic and conceded stance. Especially with such an excuse...
my apologies then...I would like to see how he responds to my accusation of his most vile position. I'm pissed, I won't butter myself up, but I'll be damned if I can't be agent while ripping his throat out...heh...
Well, single parents and polygamous people want to "have children too." It doesn't mean that the state should encourage any of these ill-situated arrangements by conferring marital benefits on them just because they have children.
As I've said before, the state has a valid rationale for using marriage as a public policy tool to encourage the social unit best situated for having and raising children -- one mother, and one father. The courts have deemed such a rationale permissible.
But what gay people "tend to do" is relevant to what lines the law draws. Underaged drinkers "tend to" handle alcohol poorly. So drinking age laws draw the line at 21. Are some people under 21 able to handle alcohol as well as those of drinking age? Sure. They want to drink too, since they can handle their alcohol. Does it mean that the law should be extended downwards? No.
The fact that some gay people want to have children does not mean that marriage should be extended to gays either.
Banning gay marriage is not a violation of the 14th Amendment, just as banning consensual polygamy or incestuous unions is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. As long as there is a rational basis for banning non-traditional marriages, those bans are constitutional.
One such rationale is the states' prerogative to encourage the social unit best situated for having and raising children by using marriage incentives as a policy tool. Federal courts have accepted that argument.
intelligently argued, although predicated on standards that are no longer prevalent.
Federal and State courts have accepted that gay couples are no more or less suited top raising children than straight ones.
The 14th upholds equanimity of the rule of law. Polygamy is illegal for all of us and the vast majority agree on that. DOMA/Prop 8 segregates a very large group of citizens, legally accepted as citizens, and denies them the same legal rights and law that their straight neighbors enjoy.
See Lofton v. Sec. of Children & Family Servs. (11th Cir. 2004): "the state has a legitimate interest in [placing] adoptive children in homes that have both a mother and father."
CEP v. Bruning (8th Cir. 2006): "We hold that...laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."
Saying that "polygamy is illegal for all of us" is like saying that gay marriage is "illegal for all of us." If you don't buy that argument for gays, why would you buy that argument for polygamists? After all, you can marry someone of the opposite sex -- just like everybody else.
The 14th doesn't protect consensual polygamists or incestuous unions, just as it doesn't protect gay marriage. And that remains good law in the federal courts. The law "segregates" in non-racial contexts all the time.
You know the answer as well as I do Miss Disingenuine. Let's not have the old canard the gay partners have the right to marry the opposite sex. The State recognizes marriage, not "Straight Marriage" It does not differentiate except where States have so defined a difference. The US Constitution does not so define marriage. DOMA does which is why it is being sought to be overturned.
The argument is whether to accept gay people as they are.. I.E. their marriages. The argument is whether "Marriage" is between two same sex partners, or between two people who love each other and make the formal commitment.
Polygamy is illegal for all while gay marriage is legal in two states and recently legal in a third, losing that right by 2% of the voters. The number of polygamists vying for marriage rights is dwarfed by the number of Americans vying for gay people's right to marry.
You equate gay marriage with incest and polygamy erroneously. Part of the reason no court will uphold a partnership between incestuous partners is because no court can validate the sexual union of the partners. The Supreme Court has, however, upheld the sexual union of gay partners. If you verify the legality and citizenship of gay members of society, then you cannot, says the 14th, single them out on one aspect. It is injust and inequitable we are allowed to have sex by law and yet not marry.
Finally, while you are better at citing case law than I, I can say that the 9th Circuit has made decisions that oppose the rational behind the 8th and 11th's decisions. The 8th's "rationally relating" straight-only parenting is ill informed and is based on moral opinion more than research. Moral opinion, in my view, has less of a place in law than practical reasoning. You and I may disagree on that, I know.
Love your makeup!
carterquesnelleTV 1 week ago
It's hard to take you seriously with the make up and music.. anyways equal rights all the way!
persevere4him 3 months ago
In my un-educated opinion and based on what I have read about the formation of our country any marriage be it gay straight polyandrous polygamist between man woman dog grandma snake chinchilla whatever shouldn't be recognized in any legal sense this shouldn't be an issue at all politically the only reason it is an issue is because of tax benefits seems like they tax what they feel is bad and credit what they believe to be right sounds like social engineering via taxes and that is fucked up!
brandom215 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gay people ruin lives! I have a gay couple living 3 houses down from me and hey decided to adopt a 9 year old child from the orphanage 4 years ago. The kid went to the same school as me and he was bullied to such a point that i started to think he might commit suicide. The kid was so depressed that he called child support and made up a fake report of his dads beating him and insisted that he wanted to go bak to the orphanage. They went to court and the child got sent back to the orphanage.
KoonerProductions 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gay people ruin lives! I have a gay couple living 3 houses down from me and hey decided to adopt a 9 year old child from the orphanage 4 years ago. The kid went to the same school as me and he was bullied to such a point that i started to think he might commit suicide. The kid was so depressed that he called child support and made up a fake report of his dads beating him and insisted that he wanted to go bak to the orphanage. They went to court and the child got sent back to the orphanage.
KoonerProductions 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING!!!! When some people are young they maybe attacked by Satan in their dream and it fills them with darkness leaving an everlasting imprint on their life as a result the person feels vulnerable in their heart. Because of this certain events happen deliberately to change their sexuality by attracting suffering and unhappiness. It is these terrible events orchestrated by Satan that makes people question their sexuality leaving them emotionally vulnerable to homosexuality.
TheReasonUK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you need Beauty girl ** rockmycity.info **
MsJonajack 1 year ago
your a fool. everyone country has been formed on this over the years asshole.
TheShootTruth10 1 year ago
@TheShootTruth10 Your message is both rude and unintelligible. If you would write your message again and without the insults, we can understand you more clearly and believably.
SisterUnity 1 year ago 2
.....my dear, what are you wearing? I agree though :)
TheUnlovely 1 year ago
heh. like the cheesy fake accent
corncat 1 year ago
How about this idea, all jokes aside. Just add a name to the constitution and define it as such. "Gayiage" - Between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That solves everything. Marriage is between a man and a woman, one cannot change that.
67bandit67 1 year ago
@67bandit67 That would face the limitations that "Civil Unions" now face. those 1038 rights enjoyed by straight married couples are written in all those laws with that word, "Marriage", "Married" etc.
SisterUnity 1 year ago
@SisterUnity Just an f.y.i. Marriage is not enjoyed a lot statistically speaking. Been there, done that. It's just a legal document that gives one of the spouses a chance to stick it to the other one real good at "any" time anywhere. If one is worried about material things such as a car or house then make out a will for $250.00. If one breaks up just make out a new will. There are no perks in marriage.
67bandit67 1 year ago
Keep the light burning Sister, Love you!
wbworkout 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey gay marriage is a great thing. I mean the constitution dictates equal rights for every citizn. Thats why it is unconstitutional to deny gay people marriage, as well as a mother or father who falls in love and wants to marry their adult son, or daughter(incest). Maybe the mother-son couple would want to adopt kids too!!! Its not like we control who we fall in love with! And why is polygamy illegal? consenting adults should be able to marry as many partners as they want
akteddy79 1 year ago
I wonder how you feel about Sharia Law being taught in so many mosques in the USA, Sister Unity? I believe after much research that Sharia Law Islamists in Europe, Canada, the USA, etc. are attempting to do what the Catholic Church did centuries ago - that is, submit the world to itself.
I am speaking of the facist political system of Sharia in Islam, not the religion itself, although in Islam they cannot be separated.
What do you think this means for your community? Are you worried?
SarahRachel59 1 year ago
@SarahRachel59 I'd be worried if there was a Sharia party poised to win a majority in Congress. As yet, there isn't any such party exerting great political or social influence in any state legislature. In fact I have not heard of any Sharia election victories in any US municiple elections. Please let me know if there are any.
SisterUnity 1 year ago
@SisterUnity Have you seen Notheoriticalbullshit latest video on pro 8. watch the comments by this homophobic gay hating bigotred named theDracoIX. wow it's breath taking. he dont have the guts to put up a video so he fills up coment section with his retoric bigotry showing who the real fag is. I sustpect he's one of those repressed in the closet gays who liberates his feelings by attacking that which he is. lol. what a cool art you got on your face, bro.
how long does it take you to do it?
jrev37 1 year ago
And we're almost there! There is no intelligent way to cover this Injustice of so many years: Americans being denied a simple, but basic civil right. The Supreme Court Justices are soon facing their Brown vs. Board of Education landmark decision. There will be much frustration, no matter which way the Scale tips. peace to you: a happy marriage for all who would seek it!
Composerland 1 year ago
This is completely unrelated to your video, but I absolutely LOVE your earrings! :)
TezaRima 1 year ago
this is great because the fruitcakes were ready to shread the constitution the last time they were in conflict with it- now look at them- LOL
az101010 1 year ago
A transsexual clown talking about gay rights? yeah that should move things forward.
CynthiaSwallows 1 year ago
@CynthiaSwallows - Not actually a transexual clown. A drag nun. No surgery, no hormone pills, no Ringling Brothers. Just 31 years of AIDS prevention and care, LGBT charity fundraising, Human Rights activism, and upliftment of our constituents in 15 US Cities and 11 countries on 4 continents.
Wiki "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" for more details.
SisterUnity 1 year ago 8
@CynthiaSwallows Heh-heh-heh- you don't even know the difference between a drag act and a transexual. What a knob.
auntiesanity 1 year ago
@auntiesanity Well, no one takes "drag queens" seriously.Especially when they're dressed as a nun.Screw you.
CynthiaSwallows 1 year ago
@CynthiaSwallows By 'no one' you must mean you. Plenty of people respect drag queens. It's a noble profession that goes back a long way. :)
HenhousetheRed 1 year ago
@CynthiaSwallows Hi! some info: Actually quite a lot of people take us seriously. For example, worldwide, the various Sister Convents give out well over $100,000 to local charities. For more information, you can look at thesisters dawt org or Wikipedia The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
SisterUnity 1 year ago
your earrings are cute <3 and everything you're saying makes total sense. Gays should have just as many rights as heterosexuals; the constitution is very clear.
shannonelizabeth7843 1 year ago
Wow...that was a different / unique way of educating people on the Constitution... ;-)
NewarkGuy 1 year ago
I think gays have way more rights than 50 years ago. The only right they don't have is marriage and thats is most states. If you move to massachusetts for example, a gay person is treated quite equally to any other person.
SnowyAgeStudios 2 years ago
It's true; 50 years ago Americans who are gay were jailed for kissing each other, among a host of other things. You could be fired from your job simply for being suspected of being a gay person, and there was no legal recourse to object.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am assuming you are gay. You don't have to answer this if you feel offended or such, but do you as a gay person every have a "sexual liking" (sorry I don't know how to word it right) to a straight person of the opposite sex? I mean there have been times where even straight people have gotten that feeling towards someone of the same sex. And I am not talking about permanent feeling towards, just a quick temporary one.
Thanks
SnowyAgeStudios 2 years ago
Hello! It is a fair and very good question, thank you for asking so honestly. I am very, very gay. While I have not had more than one or two quick attractions to a woman, both of which stopped immediately upon realizing she has a vagina, I know many men who live as gay who have had many and longer attractions to women.
The real truth is that sexuality is widely diverse with most people having a combination of attractions, even though a majority of us choose one or the other for living.
SisterUnity 2 years ago 2
Thanks :)
SnowyAgeStudios 2 years ago
@SisterUnity Indeed. Why put oneself in a box of "gay" or "straight"?
snamaarGoliM 1 year ago
@SnowyAgeStudios I've never been to Massachussetts, but I can't imagine it's perfect.
snamaarGoliM 1 year ago
omg yer makeup looks amazing ^_^
zackisverybored 2 years ago
I have been away to long - love your posts and philosophy.
wbworkout 2 years ago
God help us....:-(
squint28 2 years ago
Homosexuals are not denied any of these rights. What's your point?
October31st1517 2 years ago
oh. well.. I was just trying to make the point that you have a lemur in your underpants.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
Pathetic. You know he has a point, and your wrong. When arguing about politics, make sure you are politically correct.
vashlash64 2 years ago
Lemurs are getting around a lot....
SisterUnity 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheOregoncoast 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheOregoncoast 2 years ago
Simple, eloquent, to the point, and undeniable. You go Sister!
Klebsiella33 2 years ago
Why so much hate and telling people who are not the same as you what they can and can not do?? OK then I am opposed to straight legal unions - there fuck it, if I can't be able to have the asme legal rights then neither should you straight folks.
kamihi 2 years ago
I have one straight son, one gay son, and one straight daughter.
My husband and I love all our beautiful children EQUALLY!
We all love each other and stand as a proud family unit!
How is it that one of my great kids has less rights than the other two?!
Down with Prop.8 and the idiots behind it!
We will fight with all the love in our hearts to get our son his civil rights!
KanuMom 2 years ago
I am proud and honored to stand by your side and with your family in community.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
gays will never have equal rights! everytime you meet them they cause trouble by bitching and talking about people behing their backs and cusing unecissery trouble! look at big brother. All fuckin wierdo motherfuckin cunts who are just wannbees and cause trouble!! good example cos thats the way they are. They have all these gay marches now too cos they have nothing better to do. I mean lok at the state of the cunt in this video, if you were sent out looking like that you would hide woundt ya!!
MRMOUTHY1 2 years ago
I think some info is called for here:
1) Gays have equal rights in Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Canada, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Spain and South Africa.
2) One finds wierdo motherfuckin cunts in every social grouping. Certainly a lot of them on youtube, eh?
3) The parades are used to convert your infant children with secret ray guns hidden in our panties.
4) Barney Frank, a gay, has a LOT to do.
5) I go out 40 times a year.
6) I'm not a cunt; I'm a prick.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
You shouldn't be so hateful. The sister has done nothing to harm you in anyway yet you can feel nothing but contempt. State your views, but please at least be respectful. I recently discovered sister unity and hes actually been quite an inspiration in a rather difficult time in my life, and just so you know I'm not gay, it makes no difference. I wish I had the materials and the know how to make myself look like that because I would wear it all day tomorrow.
acordian 2 years ago
Gays wander why they get discriminated so much against. It's because assholes like this give them a bad name.
Thursday0987 2 years ago
what about this video seems like an asshole to you?
SisterUnity 2 years ago
you.
Thursday0987 2 years ago
yes, but what specifically about me?
SisterUnity 2 years ago
your self righteousness and call for attention is obvious.
Thursday0987 2 years ago
OK. fair enough. What particulars of my performance here make it self righteous rather than righteous or full of conviction and confidence? What are the specifics you observe that make me appear to be doing this for attention rather than expressing ideas and beliefs or making a message or even just making a video the sake of making something?
SisterUnity 2 years ago
I felt that you where full of arrogance and your messages really meant nothing, that you where just trying to prove nothing by being different. but now that i watch some of your videos i released there is some meaning behind it. I was fast on my judgment. My apologies.
Thursday0987 2 years ago
It's clear that you are a clear thinker and articulate. Thanks for taking the time to look at any of the videos. Cheers!
SisterUnity 2 years ago
this guy is scaring the shit outta me!
TheEuropeanmutt 2 years ago
[tap tap tap] BOO! (hee hee hee)
SisterUnity 2 years ago
These filthy homos are a disgrace to America!!! All they can think of is to violate God's commands and the sanctity of marriage!!!
ItIsNotOkayToBeGay 2 years ago
nah.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
How about you keep your opinions to yourself. How does it concern you? Let two people be happy, it's not hurting anyone else.
And maybe not all of us believe in god, so why should we have to follow your 'rules'?
Get a life and let people live theirs.
kawaiimusicbox 2 years ago
Thank you so much for your sharing, I am always so touched in a deep way....Wolfie
wbworkout 2 years ago
amen to that :]
kittiekat05 2 years ago
You can just tell this guy takes it up the ass.......or does he give it? silly faggot dicks are for chicks
Matzoh09 2 years ago
I bet he talks that way to all the nuns!
SisterUnity 2 years ago
I'm Pretty sure homesexualism has always been rejected and frowned upon by the catholic religion so don't even bring nuns into this you really need to read the bible and i can say this in good confidence a man should only be with a woman and vice-versa
Matzoh09 2 years ago
I must tell you as a Hindu, I do not feel I need to read the Bible, but thank you anyway. I also am as aware of the general acceptance and the historically important role gay people played in their societies worldwide before the increase of Catholic influence as I am of the church's repudiation and in many cases eradication of it.
I will say what I like when responding to vulgarities.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
sorry gay people aren't important they have fucked up heads but i'll do some respect here and say i believe this because i personally was close to a few people who were homosexual some of them were perfectly normal but the ones that were full fruity about getting it on with another person of the same sex were fucked up in every aspect of what they said there was no logic involved. do me a favor and think about "Perception is reality" and tell me what you think i'm anxious to hear a response
Matzoh09 2 years ago 2
It sounds like the fucked up gay people you knew were... fucked up people. Gay may have been just a context in which they expressed what would have been f-ed up anyway. What was your experience of the gay people who you were saying were perfectly normal?
What specifically do you want me to apply "Perception is reality" to here? What I think about it will change depending on the context.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
about the perception is reality statement what is your view on how it can be used in whatever you believe do you think it's useful do you believe the statement is "true." When i used to have friends who were just really good friends but i had no idea they were gay it was never apparent and it always gave me the impact that the homosexuals who actually were out there about their sexual preferences were crazy, when dealing with anything they had little logic in thier thought process.
Matzoh09 2 years ago
Thanks, I think I understand your question now.
I too have known/ know people, gay and straight, who are operating on their own perception of what is real or true... and it does not seem like much of what I know to be real, you know? I think those are just people with big egos or who are spoiled, or insecure, or just a little nuts.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
Then there are people who are just naturally different, even colorful or flamboyant. We might not LIKE what they are about, but that's just personal differences. They might be OK people, just really really really different from what we like or are used to, or believe in.
So that's what I think.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
What does gay marriage have to with equal rights?
ChronoStrifeFF7H 2 years ago
some people in the US are legally able to marry the person the love and with whom they live in a long term, committed relationship, recognized by the state, while others are not so able, by law. Some Americans are allowed by law, other Americans are not allowed by law.
SisterUnity 2 years ago
wath happend to men??? you think that you were put here 4 this ,this is all ..i feel so sad 4 u men hare not men any more
33and4 2 years ago
My friend, it's OK. Only 10% of men at the most are gay men. and much fewer of those men cross gender lines as I do. There are an overwhelming abundance of manly men and always will be. I rejoice in the diversity of my brothers!
SisterUnity 2 years ago
Brilliant
Thecultofsia 2 years ago
Sweet suit
DidntKnowWhatToPut1 2 years ago
image is too dark. I suggest another light would brighten things up. :)
jackal242 2 years ago
Hey Sister Unity, I love the look BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Gays should have the right to marry. While certain theocon groups may fume, laws like DOMA violate at least three ammendments to US Constitution that I can point out: 1st(separation of church and state), 5th (due process of law), 14th (equal protection under the law. Someone has got to grow a set and challenge NOMA in SCOYUS on these grounds. The US Constitution, NOT THE BIBLE is the highest law of our land!
biancademonet 2 years ago 3
biancademonet:
And yet, this biblical fundamentalist don't see the US Constitution in that logical sense, nor will they care to see it unless its convinient to their whims. I believe that the best way to fight fire with fire is by finding the loop holes in the laws and find ways to patch em up before this religious fundamentalst do, so we can still continue having a secular system, otherwise, we best be prepared for the worse case scenario: A civil war.
P.S. Greetings ans Salutations
Exsecrabilis 2 years ago 2
Either ban divorce or make all marriages illegal and only allow civil unions - religion has no place in government because its only used to persecute others.
HATERSDotTV 3 years ago 9
**( only that institution which has both the male and female sex as requisite components is not in contradiction with the Constitution NOR the Equal Protection Clause.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
By the same excerpt, Gay people may also be a constitutionally sound categorization and thereby protected as a recognized minority group by the Constitution and courts. The California State Supreme Court did so in "In re Marriage Cases".
SisterUnity 3 years ago
wasn't founded on military principles... tell it to the indians and why is the states at war pretty much perpetually? :/
faszika 3 years ago
Exsecrabilis 3 years ago
Thank you sincerely.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
SisterUnity:
Take care and till we meet again,,, someday,,,
P.S. Greetings and Salutation.
Exsecrabilis 2 years ago
Supreme Court's application of the Equal Protection Clause includes--
"Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest."
You see the sex of an individual CAN be a CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND basis of categorization for a law. So the restriction of the definition of marriage to **(
HiveRadical 3 years ago
If you want to preserve the santity of marriage you can do two things:
1.) Make "shotgun weddings illegal"
2.) Ban Divorce
This will not coerce people into marriage and will make people think twice about the decision to get married, and if they choose to get married it will be out of love and support. Not based on gender, coersion or any other form of hate.
adarabloodraven 3 years ago
those antenne things fuckin rawk.
deabrat 3 years ago
The law of the US is supposed to serve and protect ALL the people and be served by the people and only for the people. The LGBT community should not be left aside to allow that streight families can live easier. The law should be made to protect everyone with all their rights and not a select group or even majority. There needs to be compromise rather than radicle bans, prohibitions, and controll of what grown adults do with their lives and how they wish to live their lives.
CaliforniaWanderer 3 years ago
Comment removed
Exsecrabilis 3 years ago
CaliforniaWanderer:
With accordance to the Constitution, amendment I, the statement doesn't incline rights to certain groups or individuals as well as amendment XIV, which clrealy states that "All persons born or naturalize in the unites states, .. are citizens ... "and "No state shall make or enforce anylaw which shall abridge privileges or immunities of citizens of the United states... " Yet by doing so, they would brake Amendment VIII,
(2 b conti)
Exsecrabilis 3 years ago
cont:
- under 42 U.S.C s 1985: (1) (2) & (3); & 18 U.S.C s 241 & 242: ( conspiracy against rights), (Deprivation of rights under color of law),
Surprisingly ladies and gentlemen, you all have a case against haters that attempt to prevent rights to "Gays" by numerous acts that fall under this articles. Read and make your move now before the case goes cold.
P.S. Greetings and Salutations.
Exsecrabilis 3 years ago
Yes. "Cost" to the taxpayer in and of itself is not so much the problem as wasteful, inefficient use of state resources is. There will always be costs to the taxpayer. The problem is wasteful, inefficient costliness, and not so much cost per se.
Also, all the other reasons I mentioned.
sklanger 3 years ago
OK. Thank you for writing it out for me. I think I understand now. You are opposed to equal rights for gay marriage for that reason. And you do not find that Amendment 14 Section 1 of the US Constitution supports an equal right for gays to marriage. OK.
I do believe differently, but thank you for a truly engaging debate.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
January 20th is a GREAT day to start! Thanks for pointing that out;-)
peace~
janonda42 3 years ago
I Adore you SisterUnity - your make-up is beautiful. So simple and palin - why is that some twist that piece of divine writing to meet their own prejudice? One day! One day!
Blessings.
janonda42 3 years ago
How about we start January 20, 2009?
SisterUnity 3 years ago
If you are a U.S. Citizen you have no inalienable rights, only civil rights. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!
You are not a party to the Constitution unless you are related to someone who signed it. READ THE PREAMBLE! (United States vs. Padleford)
Citizen (Black's): a person who is a member of a political community, owing allegiance to that community.
"Citizen" is another word for "Subject" and subjects have no inalienable rights.
Good luck!
newgtguy 3 years ago
no i don't think you can use them as an anolgoy becasue they are not similar.
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
Actually, they are similar. Simply saying "you can't" or "it's not" in brainless one-liners is not an argument.
sklanger 3 years ago
but you are making a straw man agurement. by saying the rights should only be afford to those who can in your mind raise a family. if that is going to be you rationale for who can get married than it should be applied across the board evenly with some form of law demanding all married couple reproduce.
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
What straw man? The law draws imprecise lines all the time, for practical reasons. You can't go around force-testing fertility. That would violate the 4th Amendment, which is why a law "demanding all married couples reproduce" is unworkable.
By contrast, we already know that gays are biologically incapable of reproducing with each other, and that gays tend not to have children in general. No testing required. The law is able draw the line to exclude gays without practical worries.
sklanger 3 years ago
see you are living in box and creating a straw man agruement. just because without a gay couple cannot raise a family doesn't negate the ability for gays to have children, whether biological through surogates and donors or adopting. gay have the same potienal to raising a family. just because we cannot do it without serious planning doesn't mean its less than a family.
actully there is a growing trend of gays having children. which will be come more and more as we become more aceepted.
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
Actually, it does negate the ability enough to mean that most gays tend not to have children. Only a very small minority of gays use surrogates and actually have children. In which case, still an inefficient use of state resources.
In addition, the state encourages the social unit best situated for raising and having children -- a mother and a father. The fact that some gays adopt or surrogate doesn't mean the state is obliged to encourage it. It may decline to do so, for policy reasons.
sklanger 3 years ago
APA says homosexual couples are just as good and sometimes better than heterosexual couples at rasising children. once again the trend of gays with children is increasing. gay of my generation are more likely to adoptthan previous generations of gays. is it in the states best interst to leave these growing number of children at a disadvantage?
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
The APA is not the last word on the matter. Federal courts have repeatedly found that the studies are still in dispute. And where the research is in dispute, it follows that the state's rationale is plausible. Cherry picking APA studies that help only your side is not an argument for the implausibility of what the several states assert as a rationale.
And again, most gays tend not to have children. That means an inefficient use of resources.
sklanger 3 years ago
you are using genernalations you can't back up. when saying "most gays..."
once again you dont' have a leg to stand on. gays have families, to deny them access to the same rights as straights is hurting them and their children ro whomever they claim as their family.
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
Generalizations I can't back up? So you're saying "most gays" do in fact have children? Who are you kidding? Even you don't believe that.
"We tend not to have children." - Amber Hollibaugh, senior strategist for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
The fact that SOME gays have children is no reason for the state to encourage it, just as the fact that SOME underaged drinkers can handle their alcohol is no reason for the state to lower the drinking age. You don't have a leg to stand on.
sklanger 3 years ago
and only some straights have children when they get married.
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
Only some straights have children when they marry? LOL. Now you're into tinfoil hat kooky territory. Don't waste my time with your fact-free statements claiming most gays have children -- statements that have no basis in reality.
sklanger 3 years ago
again I have to warn you. I cannot allow your participation of you falsely quote other comment authors. altarboy4sin did not say "most gays have children". She said the trend of gay couples having children is increasing.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
Stop manufacturing a pretext to ban my comments. If you want to, just do it, instead of making a fraudulent show of it. I did not "falsely quote" him. If he's challenging my statement that "most gays" do not have children, it logically follows that he believes that "most gays" do have children.
You can't disagree with my statement without asserting the alternative. If it is false that "most gays do not have children," then it must be the case that most gays do indeed have children. Basic math.
sklanger 3 years ago
LOL. This is not math, however, this is real people.
She disagrees with the way your cold logic and sweeping statement disregards gay families with children.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
Underage drinkers are "real people" too. It doesn't change the fact that the law draws imprecise but optimal lines.
Nothing I say "disregards gay families with children." Those are taken into account by the very concept of optimality -- which acknowledges that the line drawn may be imprecise, but nevertheless justified on balance.
Likewise, the fact that there are polygamous families with children does not mean that we should recognize polygamous marriage. Are we "disregarding" them then?
sklanger 3 years ago
Hey, Congrats to you on our new President!
SisterUnity 3 years ago
again, please keep to actual quotations. She never said "most gays have children". She said they are having children in increasing numbers.
PLease also refrain from odious and demeaning comparisons like equating gay parents with irresponsible underage drinkers.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
There is nothing "odious" or "demeaning" about that comparison. The point is the same whether I use underaged drinkers, underaged drivers, or underaged voters to illustrate the point that the law draws imprecise lines. You're fixating on trifles.
sklanger 3 years ago
Underage voters would have been a better comparison; let's use that one going forward. Certainly words matter. I'm sure you don't mean to insult. I believe you prefer to convince with logic.
Thank you very much for keeping to actual quotations.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
To illustrate with an analogy, the fact that some drinkers under 21 are mature enough to handle their drink, doesn't mean that the state is obliged to lower the drinking age. Sure, some over 21 are still too immature to handle alcohol, and some under 21 are mature enough drinkers. The fact that some fall through the cracks on either side of the line is no reason to lower the drinking age.
The law draws what it we take to be optimum -- not precise -- lines. And optimality excludes gay marriage.
sklanger 3 years ago
hi apples meet oranges.
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
Hi logic meet analogy.
sklanger 3 years ago
it's not an analogy.
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
It is an analogy. I analogized laws drawing imprecise lines that exclude gay marriage from recognition to laws drawing imprecise lines that exclude underaged drinkers. I suggest you familiarize yourself with what "analogy" means.
sklanger 3 years ago
I've been saying that people who are opposed to gay marriage have a way of twisting and distorting facts. These comment from sklanger absolutely prove my point.
janonda42 3 years ago
Your concept of "optimality" as I understand your words, refers to the expense incurred by the State supporting gay marriages and their children, because, as you see it, fewer gay married couples raise children than straight married couples do I understand you correctly?
SisterUnity 3 years ago
I ask because I wonder about the notion of "optimal". Should the state not support a divorced parent in any way? They fall out of what you described as the optimal circumstance for a child, living with mother and father. What about foster parents where one woman or one man raise a child? That takes state resources as well.
I believe you don't much like gay people because they are gay. I appears to me that this lies at the heart of your choice to pursue this debate.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
Yes, keep questioning my motives. That just tells me that you have can't reply to the issues and see the need to attack me personally to shore up your argument. :)
The state does not continue to confer marital privileges on a divorced person. That's the whole point of a divorce. Foster parents who are optimally situated (i.e., married) receive marital benefits. If they aren't married, they don't. That's the point of marriage as a policy tool -- it uses incentives to encourage optimal unions.
sklanger 3 years ago
Right you are on your second points. My mistake.
Of course I question your motives. I think they are mistaken.
You feel attacked when I said you do not like gayness? Do you like Gayness? Are you seeking to discredit what I observe by accusing me of attacking you? Please let me know.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
Your description of my motives is itself mistaken. I don't dislike gays at all. And I have no problem with "gayness."
Your observation is bunk.
sklanger 3 years ago
ah, ok, so the reason you disagree with gay marriage, though you like gay people and do not have any issue with homosexuality, is because it produces no children and costs the taxpayer money to support, by and large. Do I understand correctly?
Please, what are your motives?
SisterUnity 3 years ago
I've answered that question below. Try reading it.
sklanger 3 years ago
OK. Could you state them for me here succinctly (and without the patronizing tone, if you please). I want to be sure I get them clearly, rather than picking them out of the text of our conversation.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
ummmmmm skylanger...why does it even matter to you if gays OR polygamists get married? I mean, why shouldn't people who love each other be able to marry, share proporty, raise a family, and be recognized as married if they are in love and together anyways? Why deny them all those rights when they do all the things that married people do anyways? Gays raise children and live together, and so do polygomists...how would it effect you if it were legal? Or anyone for that matter?
CaliforniaWanderer 3 years ago
It matters because diverting state resources to gay marriage is an inefficient use of resources. Since gays tend not to have children, and marriage is a policy tool meant to encourage the social unit best situated to having and raising children, gay marriages are a poor use of resources better spent on straight couples, who have a reproductive yield far in excess of gay couples. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
what resorcues are spent on marriage?
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
The resources spent on "Federal recognition, services, and rights." Marriage has numerous fiscal benefits. These aren't free, you know.
sklanger 3 years ago
ok list them. what services do the federal and state government provide to married couples that would be unfairly spent on homosexuals? and mind you there are gay couples that are rasing families.
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
Too many to list. Just google it.
"On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits."
"benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home..."
Most gay couples don't raise families. Ergo, inefficient use of resources to subsidize them.
sklanger 3 years ago
and what about the millions of straight couples that marry and never reproduce? or the divorced couples that get married after their kids are grown and never reproduce? why are they allowed to praticipate in marriage since they aren't using the benefits in the manner wish it to be raised?
altarboy4sin 3 years ago
The proportion of straight couples who marry and reproduce are far in excess of those who marry and don't reproduce. The average reproductive yield of straight couples is therefore still far in excess to the average reproductive yield of gay couples. In which case straight marriage is still a far more efficient use of state resources than gay marriage.
The law draws bright lines for reasons of practicality. The fact that some fall through the cracks on either side of the line changes nothing.
sklanger 3 years ago
I don't give a fuck what gay people tend to do! I want to have kids and raise a family just like anybody else! My mother raised 4 kids with good educations and morals and she's a LESBIEN! How dare you think that a generalization of gays such as not wishing to have kids should be placed upon the lives of every LGBT couple wishing to share a life together, kids or not!
Besides, it's not just us queers who don't always have kids! I WANT TO HAVE A FAMILY AND CHILDREN. like you said, marriage is the
CaliforniaWanderer 3 years ago
tool to best help people raise children as a strong and thriving FAMILY. How the fuck can you honestly believe that that could help socioty when part of society is denied marital rights that shouldn't have to be debated! I am so PISSED that you st8 ppl think that your rights and rituals are more important or even more valid than the rights of the LGBT community or ANY other community for that matter! You should be ashamed of such a pathetic and conceded stance. Especially with such an excuse...
CaliforniaWanderer 3 years ago
society* streight* people* ---I don't wish to come off as illiterate afte claiming to have a good education...
CaliforniaWanderer 3 years ago
typing while impassioned wreaks havoc with spelling, Dear One. For me, typing while breathing wreaks havoc with my spelling.
It's the ideas and the attitude that count. Remember to treat sklanger with the respect he deserves while you debate him.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
my apologies then...I would like to see how he responds to my accusation of his most vile position. I'm pissed, I won't butter myself up, but I'll be damned if I can't be agent while ripping his throat out...heh...
CaliforniaWanderer 3 years ago
a gent*....hmmmmmmm gotta work on that still haha
CaliforniaWanderer 3 years ago
Well, single parents and polygamous people want to "have children too." It doesn't mean that the state should encourage any of these ill-situated arrangements by conferring marital benefits on them just because they have children.
As I've said before, the state has a valid rationale for using marriage as a public policy tool to encourage the social unit best situated for having and raising children -- one mother, and one father. The courts have deemed such a rationale permissible.
sklanger 3 years ago
But what gay people "tend to do" is relevant to what lines the law draws. Underaged drinkers "tend to" handle alcohol poorly. So drinking age laws draw the line at 21. Are some people under 21 able to handle alcohol as well as those of drinking age? Sure. They want to drink too, since they can handle their alcohol. Does it mean that the law should be extended downwards? No.
The fact that some gay people want to have children does not mean that marriage should be extended to gays either.
sklanger 3 years ago
yay!!!! I love all these videos...so inspiring and heart-warming :)
CaliforniaWanderer 3 years ago
..and full of vitamins!
SisterUnity 3 years ago
love it, posted it to humans4equality
shhhon 3 years ago
Banning gay marriage is not a violation of the 14th Amendment, just as banning consensual polygamy or incestuous unions is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. As long as there is a rational basis for banning non-traditional marriages, those bans are constitutional.
One such rationale is the states' prerogative to encourage the social unit best situated for having and raising children by using marriage incentives as a policy tool. Federal courts have accepted that argument.
sklanger 3 years ago
intelligently argued, although predicated on standards that are no longer prevalent.
Federal and State courts have accepted that gay couples are no more or less suited top raising children than straight ones.
The 14th upholds equanimity of the rule of law. Polygamy is illegal for all of us and the vast majority agree on that. DOMA/Prop 8 segregates a very large group of citizens, legally accepted as citizens, and denies them the same legal rights and law that their straight neighbors enjoy.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
Actually, no. Federal courts haven't done so.
See Lofton v. Sec. of Children & Family Servs. (11th Cir. 2004): "the state has a legitimate interest in [placing] adoptive children in homes that have both a mother and father."
CEP v. Bruning (8th Cir. 2006): "We hold that...laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."
sklanger 3 years ago
Saying that "polygamy is illegal for all of us" is like saying that gay marriage is "illegal for all of us." If you don't buy that argument for gays, why would you buy that argument for polygamists? After all, you can marry someone of the opposite sex -- just like everybody else.
The 14th doesn't protect consensual polygamists or incestuous unions, just as it doesn't protect gay marriage. And that remains good law in the federal courts. The law "segregates" in non-racial contexts all the time.
sklanger 3 years ago
You know the answer as well as I do Miss Disingenuine. Let's not have the old canard the gay partners have the right to marry the opposite sex. The State recognizes marriage, not "Straight Marriage" It does not differentiate except where States have so defined a difference. The US Constitution does not so define marriage. DOMA does which is why it is being sought to be overturned.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
The argument is whether to accept gay people as they are.. I.E. their marriages. The argument is whether "Marriage" is between two same sex partners, or between two people who love each other and make the formal commitment.
Polygamy is illegal for all while gay marriage is legal in two states and recently legal in a third, losing that right by 2% of the voters. The number of polygamists vying for marriage rights is dwarfed by the number of Americans vying for gay people's right to marry.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
You equate gay marriage with incest and polygamy erroneously. Part of the reason no court will uphold a partnership between incestuous partners is because no court can validate the sexual union of the partners. The Supreme Court has, however, upheld the sexual union of gay partners. If you verify the legality and citizenship of gay members of society, then you cannot, says the 14th, single them out on one aspect. It is injust and inequitable we are allowed to have sex by law and yet not marry.
SisterUnity 3 years ago
Finally, while you are better at citing case law than I, I can say that the 9th Circuit has made decisions that oppose the rational behind the 8th and 11th's decisions. The 8th's "rationally relating" straight-only parenting is ill informed and is based on moral opinion more than research. Moral opinion, in my view, has less of a place in law than practical reasoning. You and I may disagree on that, I know.
SisterUnity 3 years ago