Murray wrote:Does this not violate your favorite term "seperation of church and state"?
You said it yourself, you do not need a church to perform a marriage, so then why bother? What other purpose other than trying to shove it in their face does forcing a church to perform a marriage serve?
These gays made the choice to go to the church to become married the church refused, that should be it. But they got the aclu to file a claim and the church got sued millions, retracted their missions in africa, and went bankrupt and the gays were just happy to be swimming in millions.
The government should have no rule over legal religous practice, the bible is clear, we are not to marry gays, so why can the government force us to change this?
Of course the government should have legal rule over religious practice, religion is not a get out clause for breaking the laws of the land.
I'm not particularly passionate about the separation of Church and state, I'm the UK and we've got a partially elected atheist deputy Prime Minister and Archbishops of the Church of England sitting unelected in the House of Lords. From the Independent newspaper a while back:
Here's a Trivial Pursuit question with an answer that isn't at all trivial. Which two nations still reserve places in their parliaments for unelected religious clerics, who then get an automatic say in writing the laws the country's citizens must obey? The answer is Iran... and Britain.
Is there a possibility of the Church pulling away from the legal side of marriage? I may be wrong but from what I gather those performing marriages within the church are also performing a legal service and this is where the issue is. Could the church stick to "Christian marriage" and leave legal weddings to the state. Could you go to church and get married in the eyes of God in a hetero relationship but it carries no legal weight, a legal marriage would be a separate event. Would there be an issue if Christian marriage was between two opposite sex couples and God but carried no legal weight in society, much in the way that a couple can get married in a pagan ceremony before the legal age of consent - they can go around with matching blessed pagan charms on saying they are married but the government won't recognise the marriage.
Murray wrote:Why not look at it in the sence that if the government (which should have no regulation over a catholic orphanage by the way)
Of course they should have regulation over a Catholic orphanage. An orphanage needs to meet legal requirements. They need to treat children and prospective parents fairly, they need to ensure hygiene laws are met, relevant checks are completed, paperwork is done etc. In light of
recent reports it seems that stricter regulation of Catholic establishments caring for and educating children should be more heavily regulated by the government than letting them just get on with it.
Having a crucifix on the door does not mean you can do whatever you wish with those inside, and ignore the laws of the land.
Danieltwotwenty wrote:Still doesnt answer the question of why their right out weights my right.
What right? The right to demand the state keeps legal definitions in line with that of your chosen religious book?
Why does your right to define marriage supersede that of a homosexual atheist?
Danieltwotwenty wrote:haha i wasnt talking to you murray
And also i would like to add, God created marriage so yes it is a Judeo/Christain ideal, just because you dont believe God exists doesnt make it so.
Danieltwotwenty wrote:Im sorry God pre-dates all, it is his concept and we adhere to his objective morality.
No need to be sorry. Again simply saying that it's God's concept and that that God is the Christian God doesn't help much.
