plk Posted:

I think that’s pretty messed up to give “marriages” performed in a church one name and the same marriages performed civilly another name. That leads to inequality and I bumure you that those two types of relationships will not be treated equally because, if for no other reason, they don’t have the same name.

I find it interesting that until gays wanted to get married, there was no movement to make non-religious unions “only” civil unions. You can get a civil marriage anytime you want, but what you are once you have signed your marriage certificate is married. And I know of no big religious movement to change that. To me, that right there demonstrates that this issue is about bigotry rather than preventing unbelievers from sharing the same word.

And boy, Canada must be a nation of heathens or something. I hear that gay marriage has been legal there for 4 years! They must not have any Christians in their country.

Do you watch the Canadian news a lot? Do you have any idea about what the Christians in that country think about gay marriage? (I don’t, but you seem too.)

Given how leftist/socialistic the country is, it’s not surprising.

As far as your point about non-religious marriages before gays wanted to marry, that makes sense, considering before they wanted to marry there was no conflict of interests at all. The Bible doesn’t say unbelievers are not to be allowed to marry. It does say homosexuality is a perversion of nature. There’s your reasoning why there was no prior movement.

There’s a difference between trying to be accommodating and changing religious views.