Not really. You must be terribly naive to think that 'soldiers kill to defend their country and people'. Heck, there are so manu examples that prove otherwise... such as Iraq.

First of all, this off topic rant is getting even more off topic.

Second of all, please focus on a single conflict. We were talking about the Iraq war.

and have a group of terrorist take over you country

See what happens when you watch too much Fox News?

so way to ignore things that you have no answers for.

and do you know what, youre really full of shit, you are a dispicable human being, to even the audacity to call our soldiers murderers, is absurd to spread such hate to people that not only lay down their lives to protect my freedom buut yours too. you should be ashamed of yourelf, and what ever institution that indoctrinated you deserves to be destroyed. really what is wrong with you, you are sick to even claim that real heroes are somehow murderers, it is sickening.

Easy now, there is no need to get vulgar. This is just an internet forum after all. We should show that we we are actually more tolerant and not attack anyone despite thier views on the matter. I mean, thats exaclty what they do, and we should try to prove ourselves better

Not really. You must be terribly naive to think that 'soldiers kill to defend their country and people'. Heck, there are so manu examples that prove otherwise... such as Iraq.

Bill of rights as in the American Bill of Rights? I have no clue whats in the American bill of rights. But Marriage to my knowledge in not in the Declaration of rights in the Canadian Constitution. Since I am Canadian I see things through my countries perspective and to be honest just because the US has a specific law doesn't mean Canada should stick to it, I mean heck we fought America in war as an enemy in the past why should we follow all of America's laws.

Where in the Canadian Constitution or Declaration of Rights does it say that Marriage is a right to all citizens? Who said Marriage is a right? I don't recall it ever being listed as one, here in Canada health care is a right that all citizens have, but the US doesn't so does that mean the US should change its health care system because its a Canadian right?

(The "Constitution of Canada" is claimed to be the "supreme law of Canada" and states that "...Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...". God is the ultimate legislative authority on the lawful definition of marriage in the Dominion of Canada.  The laws of God are supreme in the Dominion of Canada.)

The Laws of God are supreme in the dominion of Canada.

Now you are obviously uneducated in the Canadian Constitution or our Declaration of rights, because nowhere does it say that Marriage is a right. Now through seperation of church and state and recent court rulings it has been decided that the Canadian Government has authority over marriage and it is no longer a religious practice. But that in itself is unconstitutional.

Here's my stance, two consenting adults living together under one roof regardless of sexual orientation should be allowed to have a union. That union should be treated the same as a marriage by Government. A pastor has every right to deny service to a gay couple and all civil servents should have the right to practice their religious beliefs, their are plenty of civil servents who do not share those beliefs.

As for your whole Government is taking it too easy on religious beliefs. I'm sorry but like the gay marriage thing, Athiests and such make up such a small segment of the population, why do they deserve the right to rule the country and lord their beliefs over those who don't agree with their theories?

Fact is Marriage is not a right, if it was I'd be married by now I mean if its my right to get married then I deserve to get married but nobody loves me like that, so maybe I should force a lady into an arranged marriage I mean it is my right isn't it? Marriage is not a right its a privelage. Infact marriage isn't considered a right in the US constitution either, you calling me on not knowing my constitution, I just realized Marriage is not a right in the US constitution either nor in your Australian Constitution infact marriage was first mentioned in yours in 1961.

Marriage is not a right in any of our three constitutions or declaration of rights or Bill of rights etc..etc.. If I'm wrong I would love to see evidence that Marriage is actually called a right in my country your country or the United States of America?

As for a civil servent being paid by peoples taxes that doesn't mean that they do not have religious rights. You can't force someone to do something against their will. Especially since most of these civil servents got the job before gay marriage was passed, they never agreed to marry gay couples and they shouldn't be forced. You can't change someones job description and then fire them for having a belief different to you.

My argument is, if gay marriage is legal which it is. Their are plenty of civil servents and pastor's who would be glad to marry a gay couple. Why force those who have religious beliefs to do so?

so way to ignore things that you have no answers for.

 to people that not only lay down their lives to protect my freedom buut yours too.

I'm going to use the US as an example. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) lists the following rights allowed by a married couple (I'll post a link rather than pasting an entire page of rights):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

Note that the Act states "Defense of MARRAIGE", not "Defense of Civil Union". Once you start using seperate turns, it opens the floodgates for whackjob conservatives to declare rights for marriage and not for civil union. And you cannot guarantee "oh no politician would do that". Besides, what is the point of doubling up of laws? And before you can say "Well, we'll just make marriage a type of civil union, too", that's not exactly solving the initial problem stated, is it?

Okay, now let's say we "exempt" civil paid pastors who have a problem about gay marriage. What happens when they all want to be exempt, huh? And don't say it will never happen, because once again, you cannot guarantee that all pastors wont consider it against their religion at some point.

Ummm dude if I recall correctly you said marriage was a right under the Bill of Rights and US Constitution. The defence of marriage act is not in the Constitution or Bill of rights its just a law passed recently. Also this law which you say makes Marriage a right to all American's specifically says marriage is between a man and a women. So the one law you are saying claims marriage is a right also says its between a man and women. You can't have it both ways either its a right? Which it is not, or its a law governing over marriages in the US and nothing to do with rights of gay people.

As for forcing Pastors, come on man do you really believe that the Government has the right to force their religious views on people. This is starting to sound like China where the Government tells the pastors what they can preach on or edit the Bible to line up with the Government's agenda's. Censoring and forcing pastors to marry gay couples is communist and very far from democratic its persecution. I don't care if other pastors see these civil pastors and realize they have religious rights too.

Fact is we don't live in China, I live in Canada other members in US,Australia and Britian and in these countries pastors and all citizens have the freedom of religion. Each and every one of us have the right to practice are beliefs freely and to force us against our beliefs is persecution.

Your argument is dead, Marriage is not a right according to my constitution, your constitution the American constitution or any other constitution I know of. Even the marriage law you bring up specifically says marriage is between a man and women. So no Marriage is not a right and no gay's are not being mistreated or not treated as equals by being denied marriage. A union like that pruposed by my Prime Minister would have seen gays treated as equals without violating people's rights and enraging the population.