| Joelcool7 said: Ummm firstly I do understand what a Constitution is, its the founding principles and laws in which a country is to be governed. The Constitution is made to ensure that everything in it remains law protecting and preserving that countries principles. All future laws and actions of that countries government must respect and adhere to that constitution. Its a written record that dictates and governs how a country should be run. I could now quote the dictionary definition "A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed" How don't I understand how dictionaries work, they are books in which the legal definitions of words are contained. Fact is the Canadian Government had to change the legal definition of the word marriage so that gay couples could be married. That has nothing to do with dictionaries, which means you probably don't understand how a dictionary works. Dictionary companies don't decide what a word means they simply give the definition. Please don't accuse me of not understanding something you clearly don't. As for pastors and such, umm I'm not saying they will be forced and making some kind of prediction. I'm stating they are being forced and I would know as I am Canadian where gay marriage has already been passed. You live in Norway and are commenting, but you see you have no clue what goes on in the rest of the world. If the US were to legalize marriage yah they might force pastors, they might not I don't know. All I can say for sure is that the Government was going to revoke my pastors marriage liscense for refusing to marry a gay couple. Infact due to anti-discrimination laws and the fact that the definition of marriage has been changed in Norway as of 2009 I wouldn't doubt your country is forcing pastors and civil servents to marry gay couples as well. As for argueing with me, save your breath I don't argue. I debate maturely and respectully with all members of VGChartz but once something turns juvinile and the debators start to take things out of control, then I leave. Their is a major difference between arguing and debating!
|
First of all, it is not mature and especially not respectful to compare homosexuality to zoophilia, pedophilia and whatever being attracted to inanimate objects may be called.
Second, you may be able to find a definition of what a constitution is, but what have you argued that proves you understand it? Nothing as far as I can see. In your argumentation you seem to think that a right not explicitly mentioned in a law means that it is not possible for it to be one.
Fourth, you used the phrase "change the definition of a word", which lead me to assume you meant in the sense of a dictionary (which, by the way, only records how a word is used, they are not "legal definitions"). I don't know what the previous legal (as in: written in a text of law) definition of "marriage" was in canadian law, but perhaps you can tell me? Preferably by quoting the previous and current text.
Fifth, reading through some current Canadian marriage laws there is (obviously) no indication of forcing a priest, pastor or indeed anyone to marry anyone if they do not wish to do so. In fact, they explicitly use phrasing to say that religious leaders may solemnize a marriage. Same as in Norway, then. A priest, pastor, rabbi, iman or whatever (including civil servants, yes - same as in Canada) can refuse to solemnize a marriage for any reason.
Someone has brought up two facts you should take to heart:
1: The UN declarations of human rights (which, again, already mentioned) do not specify that men and women necessarily shoud marry each other.
2: That denying a pastor, priest, rabbi, iman or whatever the right to marry a same-sex couple can very easily be construed as a form of religious discrimination.
PS: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguing
