COMMENTS:
BY 'force' I MEAN FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
I don't mind legalisation and recognition of homosexual marriage by the secualr government.
But religious insitutions should not have to be forced into embracing this. They should be free to accept or reject it. If theya re to accept it, it should not be out of force but out of something more genunine.
Certainly religious groups and others should be forced to 'tolerate'. But toleration is something different from 'acceptance'. Toleration is simply coexisting with something, not necessarily ebracing it. If there is a noisy child on a train, one doesn't necessarily have to like it, but they tolerate it, and put up with it. Forcing toleration of other's life choices is one thing, but forcing acceptance and embracement is another thing all together.
I suppose that ultimately depends on whether or not you believe gay people deserve the same civil rights as straight people.
No,and no one is saying they should..
Men and women who are married in churches, for many it's just a location, a pretty place for their wedding, a large percentage of those people will never step foot in a church again. If this ballot is an argument against gay marriages, I for one would not want to be married in a church, even if they accepted the union.
By not having to accept gay marriages in their church does not mean they have the right to influence laws that take away a persons civil rights.
Separation of church and state Mr. Bush, although why I think he would care about passing laws that are unconstitutional, he doesnt even listen to the supreme court unless it's suits his agenda
No. Secular/ legal institutions should. But requiring a religion to do so would be an imposition of the will of the State on Religion -- breeching a basic Constitutional Right.
No, and in no cirmcumstances that I am aware of have they done so.
Forced? No.
Willingly? Yes, of course.
Both churches and gays should be free to do as they choose.
FiddleFaddleOnLSD- what if there was a Christian club for husbands and wives that said 'no gays allowed'?
But these questions are probably more relevant to people whose country / city/ province/ state have already legalised homosexual marriage.
"If this ballot is an argument against gay marriages"
- No more of a question of how far to go after it becomes legalised.
oh_what_a_relief ^
how far to go after it becomes legalised.
Some Churches now will not marry someone who has been divorced, the Gov. doesnt' go in and say you have to perform these ceremonies. It would be totally up to the church.
This is really what the writers of the constitution had in mind when they put in the separation of church and state clause. They are to make no law to tell any religion how to believe or practice. I find it funny to have a religious symbol in the court house is a violation of church and state yet breaking the constitution and making a law to tell a religion how to believe is not! go figure!!
|
