President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

I wonder if the constitution allows for 100 of other minority behaviors? Anyone have an issue with lowering the legal age down to eight so that pedophiles can have their constitutional rights too?

a reply to: LeatherNLace

That's right. In fact, thanks to Annee in another thread some new info has been shown. According to Religious Law getting married through the Church (Religious Wedding) should be separate from being Married through the State (Civil Weddings). Not just that, but having the two linked together they way they are now is actually a violation of Religious Doctrine. So technically anyone who's been married through a Christian Church and is Christians themselves while also being Legally Sanctioned by the State has actually gone against Religious Doctrine on marriage.

The true way to fix all these problems about Gay Marriage as well as being Religiously Married without being in Violation would be to completely separate the two. Meaning if you're Religious you can get married through the church and will be recognized by the church, but not the State. So no state benefits. If you're not religious or perhaps want to still be married but the church refuses to let you get married through them, then you have a Civil Marriage which is recognized by the State but not the church. You get State benefits and whatever else comes with it.

Once again showing why the separation is supposed to be completely separate.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm sure everyone but the pedo's would have a serious problem with that.

Were you trying to imply that letting Gays Marry is somehow similar to Pedophiles marrying children??? Or was it just an accident made in poor taste???

Marriage equality doesn't have a thing to do with behavior, it has to do with equal treatment before the law.

Equal treatment before the law also properly tries, convicts and punishes straight pedophiles, gay pedophiles, Baptist pedophiles, conservative pedophiles, equally.

There must be a lot of people interested in pedophilia, based on how often this ridiculous comparison is made.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ketsuko

The cake shop owner....i agree he should have been sued. That is 100% EEOC related, as the cake shop owner provided a service that was predicated on complying with the EEOC. Were his conscience to tell him to not serve a person who was not caucasian, he would have been raked over the coals (rightly) as well. Sexuality should be an EEOC issue."

Actually, I'm a private business owner and gay. The cake shop owner, ran a private business, and if he had under 20 employees he is not subject to EEOC requirements...I don't think. I believe it's his right to say "I won't make you a cake" without legal repercussions. Just as religions that don't agree with gay marriage wouldn't be subject to perform the religious ceremony.

a reply to: guitarplayer

If you are beating around the bush about bestiality, at least have the balls to come out and make that asinine connection.

To equate homosexuality with bestiality or pedophilia shows me that you have no other reason to disprove of LGBTQ+ except for hate and ignorance. Also big thumbs down for unoriginality, you just regurgitated the same stuff that has been going around forever.

1a) Bestiality is a different type of crime – namely cruelty to animals. Doing what you want in the privacy of your home doesn’t extend to the freedom of indulging in private abuse. So this particular crime has nothing to do with homosexuality which takes place in private between consenting adults.

B) Bestiality is more a kin to rape that it is to homosexuality.

C) Bestiality is a person having sex with an animal - this comparison is offensive, as if a same-gender partner was not even a human being. Love and sex between two people of the same gender has nothing to do with bestiality whatsoever, whether legally, morally or theologically.

2) Pedophilia in any circumstances constitutes rape because, by legal definition, a minor cannot be a consensual sex partner. Pedophilia is also a violation by any measurement because it is forcing sexual activity on someone who is not physically or psychologically ready for it. Love and sex between two consenting adults who are the same gender has nothing to do with pedophilia whatsoever, whether legally, morally or theologically.

3) You are saying, "Look, I believe the law grants the same rights to all of us, whether we be Christian, or rapists.”
I was going to post this video but because it's only available in the states, I can't get the code for the video. Here is the link to the video so you can watch it. Jon Stewart: Stop comparing gay marriage to bestiality

4) This may be a bit outdated but still is very much relevant Jon Stewart- Gay Agenda

originally posted by: Losonczy
Actually, I'm a private business owner and gay. The cake shop owner, ran a private business, and if he had under 20 employees he is not subject to EEOC requirements...I don't think.

The EEOC is about employment (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and has NOTHING to do with the baker's case. Neither do the number of his employees.

The baker's case was in violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination law, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations, not employment. It's a state law, not a federal law.

I believe it's his right to say "I won't make you a cake" without legal repercussions. Just as religions that don't agree with gay marriage wouldn't be subject to perform the religious ceremony.

That's incorrect. He lost his case. He's not a religion or a church. He's a business that offers products and services to the public, and that includes gay people.

Each state law is different.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm sure everyone but the pedo's would have a serious problem with that.

Were you trying to imply that letting Gays Marry is somehow similar to Pedophiles marrying children??? Or was it just an accident made in poor taste???

Go back a few decades and we would be talking the same line about gays, my point is that there are 100s of minority behaviors, people are also born with these behaviors too, do not have a choice other than to not do them or keep them secret just like gays had to do in our not too distant pass, so what makes gays protected under the constitution and all these other minority behavior are not?

But...but...

It's CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE!

ps. What the flying f*ck does that even mean?

Sure, let's just erase the concept of correcting inequitable laws. Let's tell black and white couples that they can't get married, and heck while we're at it, let's just take the vote away from women and African Americans! Hey, why not just tell both women and blacks that they're property again ... Because you know, that's the way it used to be, eh?

What an asinine argument!

I disagree. The Constitution was written at a time when cooler heads prevailed. There's nothing in it that guarantees same-sex marriage.

I'm not sure that the Constitution guarantees the rights of gays to marry, after all, Obama was a Constitutional lawyer before he was President and had an anti gay marriage position when he was first elected.

However, the Constitution certainly says that groups shouldn't be discriminated against, but sexual preference is NOT mentioned as being one of those groups. Most Americans don't know that you can still be fired because of your sexual preference, or lose an apartment, or be denied service at a business. Businesses that say "I won't bake a cake for a gay couple" aren't actually breaking the law in most cases in the USA, people are outraged against them based on today's moral standards, not because there are laws in place protecting people with a same sex sexual preference.

The USA loves to claim that they have the moral ground on so many issues, but in reality, are so lacking in morals that I'm surprised that ANYONE would want to copy their society.

My friend recently brought this up; she hates the idea of being gay & is an extremely uneducated, utterly staunch conservative who can't explain why she believes what she does (long term conditioning won, we lost)

She is fine with gays getting married so long as they don't call it marriage. Find another word for it.

Seriously, these are the people that think voting exists.

I hope our world burns & soon.

My favorite quote is:

If homosexuality is going to affect your marriage then one of you is gay.

Sums it up.

The Constitution does address equal protection of the laws however, which is the issue at hand.

Due to the posters who were saying Obama is only saying this to "pander for votes/because it's an election thing", I had to make sure I the thread was actually a 2014 one. Yep, we just have some numbskulls on the forum, that's all. Calm down, ladies. Undies out of crevices now, he can't run a third time. < rolls eyes >

I've made my stance on gay marriage very clear on these forums, and have made it abundantly clear that I didn't marry in hopes of some promises for unprovable religious bullhockey. No one -- gay or straight -- should be bound to any religion's ideals in exchange for tangible legal ones. Get out of the way, the court is not your religious house. Not in this country. If you like that aspect of religion stuffing it's fingers into law, places such as the Middle East welcome you.

Sometimes there is such a thing as too much freedom. We will pay for having our minds so open our brains fell out.

a reply to: Spruce

What percentage breakdown of freedom do you prefer?

What will we have to pay and to whom will we have to pay it, I wonder?

originally posted by: Spruce
Sometimes there is such a thing as too much freedom. We will pay for having our minds so open our brains fell out.

Ya, because open mindedness is obviously key to any societies downfall.

I'll never understand why people care so much abut other people & what they do.

Maybe you should read up on ancient Rome.

a reply to: Spruce

Alright done. Batchelor's degree in history and English specializing in classical history and literature.

So can you answer the questions I asked? Or not?