Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Oct 2008 19:26 UTC, submitted by SK8T
Thread beginning with comment 335055
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-08-12
My, my, my, a little a bit of a hypocrite are we?
-- the government writes the civil definition and Muslims, Christians, Hindus the religious. Neither forces the other.
It's wrong for the state to define marriage because you see it as a religious arrangement... Wait, wait, what happened to this whole separation of church and state thing you mentioned earlier? Why is the government in the business of sanctioning/blessing/etc religious arrangements?
Oh, right, the state doesn't see it as a religious arrangement, it sees it as a civil / legal one.
You're the one trying to have your cake and eat it too, you want the government to recognize marriage, but you want them to only recognize your religious definition of marriage. Sorry, it doesn't fly: It's separation of church and state not simply separation of state from church, just as the state isn't entitled to force it's view on the church the church isn't entitled to force its view on the state.
In civilized countries -- like Canada