- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
When you talk about being against gay marriage, do you mean on a national, legal level, or on a religious level? Both?
I know there have been a lot of hurt feelings on this subject across the board lately, and I've noticed people wording their responses to add that they're against "Christian gay marriage."
In my mind, this makes total sense, and I never expected churches or religions to be forced to marry anyone that they didn't want to. So I guess what I'm saying is, are you okay with gay marriage as long as it's not forced on churches? And if you're not, can you explain why you are against legal gay marriage for non-religious reasons?
A note: I know we've had a lot of posts about how people feel unwelcome on political posts. I'd like to make this a thread that our liberal bees, conservative bees, and LGBT bees can read without feeling attacked. So please keep that in mind when responding!
good question. im confused about this too. if your faith teaches that same-sex marriage is sinful, why does that involve people outside your church? its one thing if your priest wont marry 2 women. seems totally different that some states refuse to.... isnt that a civil rights violation?
lilyfaith - good question. I have always wondered the same thing. Legalizing gay marriage would never require churches to approve of gay marriage. So it seems like the religious side could continue to do as it pleases, while allowing equality of legal rights to everyone. Same way a church doesn't have to marry people who live together before marriage - but the state sure has to!
From what I understand, a lot of Christians are taught to not let society stray from "moral Christian values" and that they are obligated to basically steer others back in the right direction. It's how tolerance is viewed also. My one friend states adamantly that Christians don't have to be tolerant--God wants us all to be Christians and love Him so it's her "job" to not just "put up" with "bad" things because it affects everybody. When I told her how I didn't appreciate my dad lecturing me about God, she told me he had "every right" to do so if he felt I was straying. There is a lot of pressure to impose their own personal, Christian values onto non-Christians in an attempt to somehow guide them to the light or something.
I'm not explaining it well, but that's what she said when we'd talked about this. Also this discussion went into the whole "separation of church and state" and she firmly believed we shoudl be a Christian nation and there should be no separation fo church and state. A lot of people feel like if God was in school, we would be better off.
That is her perspective and I know a lot of people feel that way, particularly in the US. The churches here teach you to be advocates for your friends and neighbors, to guide (aka recruit them) to God and help them out. They are lost and it is a Christians' job to convert non-Christians to God. So by voting FOR gay marriage, they're basically doing exactly what they're told NOT to do--allowing "immoral" things to occur in society. And she says things like "what if gay marriage IS allowed? Then they can raise children" (heaven forbid) and she thinks that kids with two mommies or daddies just get so messed up that gay parents shouldn't be allowed to have kids. But, she's never really been outside the midwest...me, coming from California, I realize there is a lot more of a positive force for alternative lifestyles and it really isn't as big of a deal or as scandelous as it is here in the midwest.
Essentially I see it as a way of pushing Christian morals onto others (even if they aren't Christian) and I can't get on board with that. But that is what they are SUPPOSED to do I guess. It's why my dad has these VERY strong need to always lecture me about God. He can't live with himself if he isn't proactive about it, even if he drives me nuts by not shutting up. This *may* be an extreme viewpoint (i really don't know) but it's what I see and have been told of in my neck of the woods. AKA The Midwest. AKA The Bible Belt. Oh and people just don't "like" the idea and think it's "gross" (particularly a lot of men? Man on man homophobia is a big deal) and just don't like the idea of it, so they vote against it. Again, not my personal beliefs but what I've deduced from living here.
This is so complicated to answer! There were only a few of us that mentioned that, and I think I was the last one to do so, i.e. I feel like I need to respond even though I know I'm of a VERY different thought process of most bee's. Hopefully knowing that I have over 1000 normal people sounding posts people won't totally hate me.
I want to add a disclaimer that this is really really complicated and I don't have the time to write the dissertation required to full explain my position.
-I'm for human person. That starts at conception and ends at their NATURAL death. Everyone deserves to be loved and have love.
-I'm for loving all, supporting all, and human rights.
-I believe that not doing something or being friends with someone or in some way holding sexuality against someone is not right or Christ-like.
-I think that all people, regardless of marriage or single etc.. should be able to designate people who can visit them in the hospital or make critical life decisions in case of emergency. This goes for other legal/civil aspects as well.
-I think that everyone deserves love and respect.
-I am not convinced that "homosexuality" is "natural" *don't kill me, I haven't seen evidence proof enough, and I don't want to turn this thread into a "let's convince KLP" thing*
-I am of the belief that men and women were created in a way that fits together properly and that procreation is just as fundamental to "marriage" as union and relationship.
-I think that there is a reason for the natural togetherness of male and female anatomy and it's that way for a reason regardless of who your God is or why/how we were created
-I think that the lack of ability to naturally reproduce without 3rd party assistance is the greatest hurdle to my acceptance of homosexuality as a "normal" relationship.
-I think 2 people of the same sex can raise a normal human just like a single mother or father can, but I also think that the family unit with male and female who "loved" a child into being is the better formation... but not that it can't happen other ways...
-I think marriage is inherently and historically religion based and it wasn't always about "civil liberties" if you really go back in time. According to my Christian background, it is a "Covenant" not a "contract."
-Although I'm not yet convinced at it's "naturalness" I don't see how we can stop a "civil union" in the eyes of the state, however, most homosexual couples state that this is not acceptable unless full "marriage" is granted and accepted at any level and in any church.
-I'm concerned about legal recourse towards churches who do not accept or validate homosexual marriage
This is a very shallow and in-complete list. One I'll be honest I don't really wish to share because I know I'm about to jump into a lions den... so... um... ya... that's part of it?
ack, I'm fearfully going to hit submit now...
@KLP: I actually really like how you answered it. Do I agree with half of what you said? nope. But I really respect the way in which you expressed your opinion and the reasoning behind it. Normally I hate when people give the "religious" answer to why they oppose something. But you backed up your opinions with solid religious viewpoints, not just "because I'm Catholic." I can respect that :)
Thanks KLP! I'm not going to attack, I promise! I hope no one else does, either. I really appreciate you spelling out your thoughts that way. Just a few thoughts on your points...
- what are your thoughts on couples who don't want children or can't have children being married? does this make their marriage less valid?
- do you feel churches face pressure right now to marry couples of different religions or who don't attend? Maybe it's just my personal experience speaking, but I have never met a gay couple who wanted their marriage in a church, and I feel like this is parallel to the right a church has to turn away any couple that is still alive and well.
-regardless of what marriage means to you, isn't there a separation of church and state? Marriage as a civil right in the US has always been different from religious marriage. That's how people get married in courthouses, or in different religions, and still have their marriages recognized.
-what do you consider full marriage? because I disagree that full marriage = marriage in a church.
oh, and come on, penguins and swans and gorillas and pandas... ;)
@KLP - you pretty much hit the nail on the head for me. i can almost say "ditto"
for me, i have nothing against gays wanting to spend the rest of their life with someone. i have no problem with them wanting to raise children, visit their significant other in the hospital, or any of the other "civil" rights that come with being someone's legal life partner.
however i do have a problem with gay marriage because to me marriage is a covenant, a sacrement, before God.
i am all for gay civil unions, but against gay marriage... dunno if that makes sense, but its basically what i believe to be the defininition of marriage in of itself is something ordained by God, not something that the state or government has anything to do with.
as i stated in another post, the acceptance of the church for gay marriage goes against the teachings that they have. thats like for someone to learn that the sky is blue, God tells you the sky is blue, but wait... someone wants to say its not exactly blue but ehhh kinda aqua. similar but different. and you have to decide whether you are going to go with what you were taught and believe from God, or someone's interpretation of what you should believe.
i have no idea if this makes sense to anyone but *shrugs* i tried :) *cringing as i hit submit*
@klp- this is not meant as an attack at all but i've heard similar arguments a LOT and there are a few things i really don't understand about it.. maybe enlighten me?
1- what about people who CAN'T have children? Are they not supposed to marry because they're incapable of reproducing?
2- what about people who don't want to have kids? Are they sinning because they choose not to have kids?
3- how many kids is the 'right' number? does 1 count? or do you have to go the duggar-route?
4- do you not accept the other purposes of sex like intimacy?
5- if homosexual is unnatural, how come lots of other animals in the animal kingdom practice it?
ETA: @lilyfaith-- JINX YOU OWE ME A COKE ;)
@KLP - Very well written. You wrote the thoughts that I couldn't find a way to express. To that I say, Ditto :)
@spaganya - I get what you're saying, would you mind answering the original question for me? Are you against gay marriages in a legal sense, outside of the religious world?
I think it's really difficult because many people define marriage in religious terms, but many others do not. Why is it that as an atheist, my marriage is still going to be valid even though it will not be done in a church and has nothing to do with religion, and that is a non-issue, but there is such an issue regarding LGBT individuals?
@lilyfaith - just to answer one of the things you will probably ask me too:
for couples who marry who cant or dont want children - personally i dont like children (if you have seen some of my posts you prob already know this LOL) and i dont want any, neither does my FH. I do take precautions to not have kids, but with that said, as i will be married, if God sees fit to bless me with pregnancy, i will take on that burden (or blessing HA!) because i believe that is what God chose for me.
thats a personal choice, and a choice that some might not choose but from my teachings i have to accept that as my choice.
as for couples who CANT have children - there are many ways - even ways in the Bible that speak of how men and women can be fathers and mothers without actually bearing a child. it doesnt make their marrige any less important or sacred. I know many couples who cannot have children who instead are mothers and fathers in their own rite to friends, family members and their community.
ultimately i think God does what is best for us, and while we may not know why things happen i have faith that things happen for a reason.
@KLP - I definately couldn't have broken down all my thoughts/views and stated them as factually and eloquently as you. I guess I've just never really been in a situation where I had to list out things in order to justify my beliefs. You did a great job with that! :)
Well, I think eveyone can think what they want, as long as they don't force it on others. For instance - that well-known phrase "If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't have one."
For me, I am a Christian, and I also full-on believe in gay rights and gay marriage. Some churches will marry gay couples, others won't. For me, legally, gay couples should be allowed to marry. Churches can make their own decision because we live in a free society and all faiths have many different permutations. For instance, I'm not Catholic, so I will never be allowed to marry in a Catholic church, if my fiance were Catholic and I wasn't planning to convert. Many Christian churches DO conduct gay wedding ceremonies. I think some people forget that, according to the Bible, the only directive is that you "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". The End. Much as many human beings would like to add conditions onto that.
@Corgi, I know a lot of beliefs like Catholicism feel like if you don't have kids, you "are" sinning and if you accept 3rd party help for creating a baby, that is a sin too and it is unnatural and that the purpose of sex IS babies. Or at least on the more devout spectrum. I'm no Catholicism expert, but my roommate is catholic and she REALLY struggles with these particular viewpoints
However I think you guys are phrasing your conservative points very tactfully and I wish I knew people IRL who were able to explain themselves as well as that. Usually they just say "because I believe in God and God says..." or something like that with no actual basis for WHY they believe that. You know, beyond "cuz i'm religious" like babyboo said.
@spaganya - I was just asking for clarification because I don't feel it makes a marriage less valid, either and I doubt anyone else usually does. :) I was more curious about marriage in the legal sense rather than the religious.
I think the word marriage has religious connotations, so it's hard to say "Oh, I'm for gay marriage in a LEGAL sense but not in a religious sense", because then it's not marriage - it's a civil union.
I also know that a lot of people don't like the "if gay people can marry legally, then why not make polygamy legal" argument, but I kind of feel like this. I mean, if the basic definition of marriage has always been Man+Woman, and it's completely ok to make it Man+Man or Woman+Woman, is it really such a far stretch to say Man+Woman+Woman is fine too?
Just want to make especially clear that I 1,000% believe in gay rights and I do not believe being gay is at all, in any way, what people call a "sin." For that reason, I fully stand behind churches that conduct gay weddings and refuse to attend churches that won't because for me, that doesn't match my values.
@lilyfaith - to me "marriage" IS a religious rite and isnt quantifiable outside of a religious realm.
which is why im okay with gay civil unions - but not gay marriage. gays i believe should be able to go to a JOP in a courthouse and be joined legally with whomever they please. but to me, in my heart thats not "marriage" thats a civil union.
marriage is religious to me - hence why i am getting married before God by a pastor. i wouldnt feel like i was married if i got married any other way.
@GirlWithARing - I understand that's what marriage means to you. But I know for me personally, it's really very hurtful when someone tells me to my face they don't believe my marriage will really be a marriage, that it will just be a civil union.
Technically, the first definition of marriage in the dictionary is:
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
(I'm not saying that's what I think it should be, but my point is a marriage is still validly a marriage even if no clergy oversees it.) That's not debatable right now, because it is that law. What marriage may mean to you is another thing entirely, but people of different philosophies still have valid marriages.
Would you tell a couple of another faith that their marriage isn't really a marriage? Or a non-religious couple?
First of all, thanks to everyone for sharing. I know WB is pretty liberal, so appreciate you all engaging in this dialogue.
I had a legal marriage, not blessed by a church or other religion and I consider my marriage 100% legitimate. A religion would not acknowledge it because we come from different faiths. That's fine with me.
I think that is all we are asking for gay couples - allow them the same legal rights the rest of us have. I don't think that the gov. could ever force churches to recognize gay marriage the same way it can't force religion to recognize other unions it doesn't believe in (such as ours). That is my struggle, if you believe marriage is religious, and the church can keep that stance regardless of what the laws say, then why not allow gay couples to have legal marriages? You don't have to recognize it as a real marriage, but the law will. So if you don't think it is quantifiable outside of a religious realm, well why not allow the law to change? no one is going to force you to acknowledge it just the law to... Plenty of people get married outside of the religious realm every day....
I totally understand where the conservative/religious bees are coming from on this topic. But I echo Ms. Snapdragon 1000000% on "if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one". Just because you think it's wrong, why do you get to make that choice for them? THAT"S the part that drives me batty. I guess ejs' explanation of how Christians feel that it's their duty to impart their values on others makes sense, but it still doesn't seem right or fair.
@Girlwitharing: I don't see how making marriage legal between two people who love each other has ANYTHING to do with making marriage legal between three people?
@spaganya and KLP - What if the state required that everyone get civil unions, leaving the matter of marriage up to individual churches? Would that be problematic?
@mssnapdragon - you are right, i think sometimes people call others out for sinning when they have no right to do so.
God tells us that we are ALL sinners that have fallen short of the glory. No one is free of that.
hence why i believe that no matter who you are if you invite God into your life you are blessed. the only stipulation to being a Christian is to invite Christ into your life yes, but that has nothing to do with having a marriage performed.
I can be a adulterer or drug addict or any other type of sinner in the Church and God will still love me no matter what, but doesnt mean im gonna do a line of coke on the pew in front of me.
So no, we should not judge people for their sins, Christ says we should love one another, but we shouldn't condone what we deem to be wrong either.
lilyfaith - I agree! Thank you for providing the definition of marriage. When a Christian person says that marriage is a religious rite I get really confused. My FH and I are atheists and will be having a secular ceremony. Does this mean we won't really be married? Because we will be married. He will be my husband and I will be his wife. The government says we are married and that we can enjoy all the privileges of a marriage. That is the wonderful thing about the separation of church and state! And what about the Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. that are married but not according to the Christian belief? They too get to enjoy all those nice things married people get to enjoy.
I guess in the end I wish gay people could enjoy the same marriage that I, as a heterosexual atheist will get to enjoy.
Edited to add - @Janna19, so well put! much better than my attempt 
- what are your thoughts on couples who don't want children or can't have children being married? does this make their marriage less valid?
You know, that's something I had to really think long and hard about. I mean, even as I typed that I was reminded again about it and was thinking it would come up. BUT, as I am Christian, and believe that all marriage has to be open to life, you're right, what if it isn't possible? What if there are "troubles?" Well, in the bible, there were "troubles." There's many examples of those who were old, were thought to be barren, or what have you. BUT, God graced them with a child. I think that as long as you are open to children there's always a chance. I'm a "chance." I shouldn't be here... My ex is a "chance." He actually has an older adopted brother because it was "impossible" for them to have kids. I know another family that adopted FOUR kids and then were blessed with 3 more that they "couldn't have." SO... while it may not always be the case, I believe that with God all things are possible, if that's what he want's from us.
- do you feel churches face pressure right now to marry couples of different religions or who don't attend? Maybe it's just my personal experience speaking, but I have never met a gay couple who wanted their marriage in a church, and I feel like this is parallel to the right a church has to turn away any couple that is still alive and well.
Since I'm a Catholic Christian, I don't think "we" necessarily face pressure to marry non-catholics as most non-catholics wouldn't "want" to be married Catholic. I think that like the Episcopalians for instance, you would find that... I do think we are facing increasing pressure for womanly ordination, acceptance of BC, AND even Gay Marriage. I do not think they will ever change and do not wish for them too. I studied deep enough into Church Teaching to know why things are the way they are and that we as women are not being degraded or snubbed just because we're not "priests." I went to a conservative Catholic university and I do have gay "Catholic" friends. They have left the church and do not expect to be married in the church because they too have studied deeply into church teaching. I think that is not the norm though and if "gay marriage" becomes law then they WILL face pressure. No different that for the acceptance of BC but BC is a "private" thing not an outward Sacramental thing.
-regardless of what marriage means to you, isn't there a separation of church and state? Marriage as a civil right in the US has always been different from religious marriage. That's how people get married in courthouses, or in different religions, and still have their marriages recognized.
There's supposed to be separation... but we are founded on Christianity... While I agree with you about the civil vs. sacramental, from what I've been told personally and read, most "gay" people are not satisfied with being labeled "civil union." etc. They feel that it is still discriminatory and that marriage has taken on a "unitive" meaning regardless of where it's performed or how. They feel that it's still not "total" unless it's labeled "marriage." again, that's what I've heard or been told, I'm sure some may say differently.
-what do you consider full marriage? because I disagree that full marriage = marriage in a church.
I've never really considered the idea of a "full marriage." For me, marriage is a covenant between God and two people that is unitive FOR life and open to Life. It's the joining of 2 becoming one Spiritually (which can technically happen with 2 men or women) and Physically (which can't happen in homosexual unions)
@spaganya – I am wondering, do you also feel then that straight couples who marry outside of a church and outside of any religious context should not be called “married”, but have “civil unions” as well? I am not asking to bash or anything at all, I am honestly wondering as I have heard this argument a lot in the SSM debate. Even as a non-religious person, I can understand why you feel that the word “marriage” has a deeper religious meaning, and I can respect that.
I personally also don’t believe that certain churches should be forced to marry those whom they don’t wish to marry – whether that be a straight couple who doesn’t belong to their church/denomination, or a gay couple.
But for those who believe if you don’t get married in a Church, or make vows either to or in front or God, do you believe those straight marriages should also be renamed “civil unions” and not “marriages”? Just wondering.
@teaandtoast - the state already requires that you get a civil union - thats what the license is for.
for instance, what would happen if i were to go to the church get married to someone in the church by a pastor, but oops forgot to get a license! to me, that is a marriage before God, but not necessarily the state. so while to the government we might not be married, i know in my heart and before God i am married.
@spaganya - Actually, no it's not. The marriage license indicates that the state has given you permission to marry and will recognize your union - it doesn't confer any other rights or privileges.
See for me, it is all a battle of semantics.
As a Christian, I honestly believe that gays and lesbians have a place in God's heart. I personally do not believe that God would ever create a child in his image to instantly damn them for loving someone. I absolutely, 100%, believe that God put us on this Earth to love and to be loved, and not for one minute do I believe that God would be mad at one human honestly loving another human. Do I think he condones a gay man or a lesbian having numerous sexual partners? Nope. Just like I don't think he is happy when straight people do it. (As for me, it is something I have to ask forgiveness for myself, and am in no way judging those who have.)
On a side note, because I have seen people speaking of gay/lesbian couples having children. I believe the reason there are gay/lesbian couples are to take care of the children that have no home. God looks after his children, and I truly believe he made couples that cannot have children to take care of the ones that have no families.
But, do I think that there should be gay marriage? Yes and No. Yes, I do believe they should have every legal right a married man and woman have. No, because I don't think that is the proper wording for it. I don't like civil unions, because that sounds like they are belittling that couple's relationship. I put this in the "seperate but equal" catagory in my brain. I think a marriage between two gay men should also be called something seperate than when two lesbians are married. Do I think churches should perform the ceremonies, that depends. Do I think a Catholic church should do it? No. I think the ideologies are too conflicting and I don't really expect that to change. Do I think a UU church should be able to? Absolutely.
On a side note, I converted to Methodist from Baptist because of their forward thinking on the matter of gays and lesbians in the church.
How are you guys so fast!? I'm still trying to catch up on what was said while I was typing my 2nd response, lol.
@gabrielelise - interesting question. never gave it much thought but for me to be deemed a marriage i would have to be married by clergy before God.
so i guess, yeah. *ducking behind computer screen for flying objects*
but that is what marriage is to ME - thats why i could not be married by someone that was not a member of the clergy and believed in God. thats why for me i HAVE to get married in a church or chapel because to me that is what it means to perform the marrige rite.
nothing against people who have had JOP weddings, married by friends who got their license online or anything else, and not to discount anyone who is doing any of that, but its my belief of what constitutes a marriage. me, personally, i just wouldnt FEEL married.
its like my friend who's mother is a very strict conservative catholic. her daughter married outside of the church by a JOP. sure she knows that legally, they are husband and wife, but in her heart she still doesnt see them as "married"
i know to someone who doesnt have that notion of what marrige is or has a differing view it might sound weird, but thats just what i believe.
its like asking someone the definition of the word "hookup"
@teaandtoast - depends on the state - some licenses themselves are the actual record - hence why you have your witnesses and bride and groom sign.
@KLP - i type 97 words per minute :) thanks to college years and AIM back in the day....
I guess the overall point that I am trying to make is that everyone can define marriage how they choose. But the state does define marriage a certain way, and it is not exclusive to religion. While my marriage may not really be a marriage in your eyes, I hope you wouldn't advocate for taking away my right to be married. Isn't it in effect the same thing?
I'd argue that in this case what marriage means to each of us is not relevant - by law, it IS a civil liberty granted to people of all or no religions.
That's why it would equally inexcusable for a government to pressure a church to marry a gay couple (or an atheist couple) against the church's will.
@spaganya - I think we're confusing terms. A marriage license is not equivalent to a civil union.
A marriage license is a document. It serves as evidence that a person is married, if appropriately signed and filed accordingly, but it does not in and of itself confer special rights or privileges beyond the ability to marry and have that marriage recognized as such by the state.
What constitutes a civil union varies from state to state, but the term is generally understood to refer to a type of legal relationship, the adherents to which are afforded particular privileges. Usually, these privileges are similar to those autmoatically conferred upon those who marry and relate to things like medical decisions, custody, etc.
My question, then, is whether or not it would be acceptable to uncouple the rights and privileges generally associated with marriage from the institution of "marriage" and instead attach them to a special category of legal relationship into which couples might enter, thereby leaving the matter of marriage entirely within the control of churches without depriving people of legal rights.
"for instance, what would happen if i were to go to the church get married to someone in the church by a pastor, but oops forgot to get a license! to me, that is a marriage before God, but not necessarily the state. so while to the government we might not be married, i know in my heart and before God i am married."
@spaganya: That's interesting, because that's the exact argument that polygamists use regarding their multiple wives- even though the government doesn't recognize it, they know in their heart that they are married, before God, to each of their wives. I'm not saying this as an attack at all, but I'm wondering what you would say to someone else trying to use this same argument.
I am a Christian, but I do believe that gay marriage should be legal. If a gay couple marries, that in no way changes or threatens what my marriage means to me. Further, if marriage is a strictly religious act, than a marriage between an atheist man and woman should not be recognized as such (using this argument). A marriage between an atheist man and women is recognized as such, and so, based on this argument, a marriage between man-man or woman-woman should also be recognized.
Also, there are several instances in the Bible where God did not want certain covenants to be made between two people, but once they were made, God honored them because He is a convenant-keeping God. Just some food for thought.
@spaganya – thanks for the response! Like I said, not here to bash, and understand that’s your personal opinion/belief and I definitely respect that.
It’s just an interesting question for me. When our state was gearing up for the SSM vote back in Nov., I heard A LOT from the conservative side (of various religions), that they supported SS “civil unions” but not “marriage”. I think some of the time that response was pc BS, but I’m sure it’s also an honest answer for many people. I’ve never heard of any call, or movement, or petition though from those same folks for renaming straight marriages outside of Church/God, “civil unions” and not “marriage”, and have wondered how firmly that belief really stretched – you know what I mean?
I dunno, it’s just an interesting question to me. Thanks again for your insight! 
@lilyfaith - thats exactly my sentiment. which is why i dont advocate for anyone's right to be denied. but what i feel is valid in MY heart is what i feel.
i guess in the end if they DONT force churches to recognize those unions then it shouldnt be a problem. but somehow i see someone suing a church over not agreeing to marry them. because thats what america does. as long as there are protections against forcing churches to participate in something that is against their beliefs then its all good.
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| hisgoosiegirl | 26 |
| Gemstone | 23 |
| Beckster329 | 23 |
| MissBoPeep | 21 |
| Rivendeler | 20 |
| Mrs.KMM | 17 |
| beargoose | 17 |
| BetterSherm | 16 |
| Rojocameo | 16 |
| couawilou | 15 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| MissBoPeep | 10 |
| hisgoosiegirl | 10 |
| beargoose | 9 |
| akp0702 | 7 |
| DaneLady | 5 |
| bakerella | 4 |
| Mrs. Meowerson | 3 |
| SapphireSun | 2 |
| Mrs.KMM | 2 |
| BayStateBride | 2 |
