IPHONES ON SALES :Available New iPhone 4G 32GB UNLOCKED, Firmware 4.0 (Beta) with 1 year Apple International warranty / New iPad2 3G WIFI 64GB,New Blackberry Bold Torch 9900/9930 & New Nokia N9 & X7-00. FREE SHIPPING.
E-mail: dialaphoneoffer@hotmail.co.uk or dialaphoneoffer@gmail.com & online chat : dialaphoneoffer@y7mail.com or Call us on : +44- dial-a-phone (7031744718).
Shipping details: FedEx,DHL & UPS International Express Delivery worldwide.

Apple iPhone 4G 32GB/16Gb .
Apple iPhone 3Gs 32Gb/16Gb.
Apple iPad2 WiFi + 3G  

Blackberry Bold Torch 9900/9930
Blackberry Torch 9800                
Blackberry Curve 3G 9330            
Blackberry Pearl 3G 9100 & 9105  
Blackberry Bold3 9650/9780       
Blackberry 4G Play Book HSPA+ / LITE

New Nokia N9 & T7
Nokia X7-00       
Nokia E7 / N8 / X2 - 01 
Nokia Astound/Nokia X6 

Samsung I9103 Galaxy Z
Samsung Conquer 4G
Samsung Exhibit 4G
Samsung Gravity SMART & Trender
Samsung I9001 Galaxy S Plus ,DuosTV I6712 ,C6712 Star II DUOS
Samsung Galaxy  Prevail ,M220L Galaxy Neo ,Google Nexus S I9020A
Samsung P1010 Galaxy Tab Wi-Fi,Galaxy Tab 10.1 3G,Galaxy Tab 10.1
Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 3G, Google Nexus S 4G, S5780 Wave 578

HTC STATUS ,Trophy,Sensation 4G
HTC INCREDIBLE S       
HTC GRATIA / HD7        

Apple Mac book Air 17/2.4Ghz/160 Intel Core 4 Duo
Sony Handy-cam 120GB HDR-XR150

BUY FAIR PRICE:IPHONE 4G/IPAD2/BLACKBERRY BOLD Torch 9900 :BUY 2 PRODUCTS GET 1 UNIT FREE + Free Shipping on all orders.

KINDLY PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW.
For more product info: e-mail:dialaphoneoffer@hotmail.co.uk or voice chat:dialaphoneoffer@gmail.com or call us on +447031744718 OR +441223968823 & speak to a representative directly.
CHAT online: yahoo : dialaphoneoffer@y7mail.com
Skype : dialaphone.
sales: Nadine Cresswell.
Dial-A-phone|© Copyright 2011|. All right reserved.®

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!

Hah, they're entitled to their religious beliefs, but should not be allowed to push them onto others.

In order to reword your analogy, your stance implies that the vegeterian doesn't eat the hotdog and then starts to forbid others from eating hotdogs too. See how it works?

Can you make up your mind? Are you against gays getitng married, or forcing people to marry gays? Personally, I'm against the second one. However, if this is a civil servant, paid by the government who has to cater to the rights of EVERYBODY, I'd call that not being able to do your job properly.

See, you really should do your research. That's the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. The US constitution has what is known as a Bill of Rights, which are there to protect the rights of civilians, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE MINORITY. Hence why Prop 8 was overturned, as the judge declared it....you guessed it....unconstitutional.

So you would perfer persecution of a child than? How dare that child have a life? he/she should have thought of that before his/hers mother got drunk and got knocked up, that ittle bastard !

@Joelcool7:

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

Lots of definitions have changed over time. There was a time when the definition of 'citizen' did not include women. Why oh why did they change the definition of that too?

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.

Pastors shouldn't have marriage licenses in the first place. Religious and civil  marriages shouldn't get mixed up.

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.

Except, that's just an idiotic analogy! A company BBQ is not a work activity, or part of work protocol. Marrying people is a civil servant's job! A proper analogy to a civil servant not wanting to marry gays would be a civil servant not wanting to marry a mixraced couple, because he doesn't agree with that. Or, regarding your vegetarian example, another proper analogy would be a vegetarian working for McDonals as a chef, and refusing to cook meat, even though that's essentially  HIS JOB. A civil servant's job is to marry people, and that includes same sex couples. He works for the state and has to follow protocol, esle he'll get fired, like any employee who refuses to do his/her job.

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.

As I said above, this is simply a bad analogy. Eating a hotdog is not part of protocol, marrying people (including gays) is. When a civil servant refuses to marry a gay person they're refusing to do the job he was hired to do, and also commiting discrimination and going against his employer's policies.

Forcing someone to go against their religios beliefs is not democratic.

Neither is forcing your religious beliefs on others.

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?

Because it's their job, as appointed by the state to marry couples (including same sex couples)!!!

Infact why change the definition of a word because a minority group finds the word offensive?

Because society changes over time?

Also a minority group in a democracy does not have the right to change the laws against the majority of people's views.

Anyw laws that are discriminatory towards minorities can be changed, regardless of what the majorities (that want to persecute the minority group) want.

Now in Canada the majority may agree with gay marriage (I don't know) but it was never voted on by the Canadian people.

Civil rights aren't voted by people.

It's debatable whether you can consider them children yet.

It is normal for people to not like their political leaders. They are always promising one thing and doing the opposite. Everything is spun by these political shysters. We are ingrained to not trust politicians. Does not matter what side of the political spectrum they represent they are simply can not be trusted.

Well I'll reply in order. Christian pastors and civil servents aren't forcing anyone to do anything by not being willing to marry a gay couple. Them having their own belief is in no way persecuting or forcing their beliefs on anyone. They are simply practicing their own religious beliefs.

As for my actual stance on gay marriage and forcing people to go against their religious beliefs and marry gay couples. I disagree with both.

A) I think Gay Union's should have been passed in the form pruposed by Stephen Harper. Gays should have been treated as equals but not at the cost of religious freedom's and rights.

B) Now that gay marriage is law I am incredibally upset that civil servents and pastor's get forced to marry gay couples. That is wrong and a form of persecution.

How does that work. A civil servent choosing not to do a gay marriage is not forcing anything on anyone. Its not like that civil servent is demanding all civil servents don't have gay marriages they are simply saying that they believe differently and aren't willing to give up their beliefs. Like my great grandpa who was drafted but was mennonite, they gave him a gun and sent him to the front, but as a mennonite he was a pacifist and refused to fight. Now his job was a soldier but he stood by his beliefs. Just because you have a job, doesn't mean you should have to sell out your beliefs to work at that job.

Does everyone who works at McDonalds have to stuff their faces with fast food, or everyone at a Beer or cigerette company have to be an alchoholic or smoker. Infact those are all jobs where the main goal is to produce fast food and beer.

Fact is you shouldn't force your beliefs on anyone, its unconstitutional.

Ummm Canada has the Charter of rights and freedoms. Much like the US's constitution not to mention our own Constitution. But guess what the Constitution was passed into law by democratically elected leaders, with the support of the Canadian people. Brought in by the majority not a minority.

Now sure in a democracy we protect the rights of minorities but not at the cost of the rights for the majority.

In the end I am against Gay married and forcing people to conduct them. I am against gay marriage to begin with but if its legalized as it has been then I am against forcing civil servents or pastorsto marry gay couples. Its like I said with my grandpa in the war, he was given a gun and sent to the front but he refused to fight, he had every right to do so, if your job violates your rights then you have no obligation to follow that job.

Its like if a job demands you convert to another religion or be fired, or a job that demands a vegetarian starts eating meat or get fired. Or a man is drafted into the army but refuses to fight because they are a pacifist. Everyone has the right to practice their beliefs.

yeah you dirty troll...you dont get to have different opinions than he does.   right after we take all your money and give it to some homeless bum to make everything equal you are being shipped off to gitmo for hate speech.