Do you approve your president/prime minister?

[Joelcool7]

fordy said:

Joelcool7 said:

You are advocating religious persecution while accusing me of homosexual persecution.

You realise that separation of church and state exists for a reason, don't you?

If gay marriage is not allowed, then the state should not recognise any marriage.

Umm you realize the actual definition of Marriage had to be changed so that gays could get married right?

Its like saying a cat should be called a dog because its not fair to the cat to call it a cat.

The 2003 Webster Dictionary definition of Marriage "a. the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

Seperation of Church and state does not mean its okay to persecute someone because a minority feels they aren't being treated right.

As for Sapphi saying its religious propoganda. When the law was first passed the Government tried stripping my pastor of his marriage liscense because he refused to marry a gay couple. That gay couple insisted that he marry them and tried forcing him to do so and the Government directly ordered him too. Now today he has his marriage liscense back so the laws must have changed a bit.

Also civil servents have the right to their religious beliefs as well.

I'll illustrate this another way. A vegetarian who works for a company is brought to a BBQ. At that BBQ everyone in the company eats meat they ask the Vegetarian to eat a hot dog, the Vegetarian doesn't want to eat the hot dog and declines, so that Vegetarian is then fired for declining the hot dog.

Now that vegetarian (Pastor/Civil worker) works for the company (Government) and that Government (Company) asks the civil servent (Employee) to eat a hot dog (Marry a gay couple) but that civil servent (Employee) doesn't believe in eating meat (Gay Marriage) so it is now okay to fire that employee (Civil Servent) because they refuse to give up their beliefs.

Forcing someone to go against their religios beliefs is not democratic. believing and practicing a religious belief is not against seperation of church and state either. Their are plenty civil servents and pastor's who would be fully willing to do a gay marriage, so why force those with opposing beliefs to do them? Infact why change the definition of a word because a minority group finds the word offensive?

Getting to the root of it, that is essentially what happened. Gay's were upset that straight people had their own word. Marriage and they weren't satisfied being treated equal without that word. Its like two babies and one has a green soother and the other a red. But the one baby cries, whines and complains that he want's the red Soother. They are the same thing just with a different name, gay's weren't  being persecuted by not being allowed to marry, the word itself had to be changed and the religious rights of millions had to be violated just to appease them.

Canada, USA, Britian we are all democracies that supposedly respect free will and freedom's of religion and speech. Seperation of church and state does not mean that religious people shouldn't have any Government rights. Also a minority group in a democracy does not have the right to change the laws against the majority of people's views.

Now in Canada the majority may agree with gay marriage (I don't know) but it was never voted on by the Canadian people. Not to mention the passing of that law violated the constitution (Charter of rights and freedoms) and the laws of Canada. Regardless of seperation of church and state gay marriage was wrong. It went against the law and violated the rights of pastors and civil servents and also changed the definition of a word all to appease a minority!