marriage help: Hear me out a minute.

This post left anonymously

Hear me out a minute.

So you know all these religious people who oppose gay marriage as marriage is a ‘religious commitment between a man and a woman’, and that allowing gay marriage will destroy it’s value and what not. Well, i just thought about that ‘religious’ part of there statement. If a straight couple wish to marry but are not religious, should they be subjected to civil partnership instead??:/ If these religious people are going to defend it with that statement should they not go the whole 9 miles?

In my view, over the past century marriage has strayed away from the possesion of the church. This probably started with increasing deforce rates does that not imply marriage is already devalued. People get married nowadays religious or not, without needing the permission of the church. It is disregarded by most (or in England at least), as we’ve already broken the bond between church and marriage why should we allow this to slow our progression into a more equal and intergrated society. I understand the religious opposion on gay marriage, but i would never support it. Obviously things will never be perfect, but it doesn’t meam we should try to make it so.

This open post was written 1 year ago | V/U/S: 221, 7, 5 | Edit Post | Leave a reply | Report Post

Reciprocity (0)

Since writing this post Anonymous may have helped people, but has not within the last 4 days.

Post Tags (6)

Statement, marriage, Church, Part, man, gay (How Tags Affect Reciprocity)

Replies (7)

Where were you?

Click and drag to move the map around. FAQ: How we place people on this map »
You can also watch events on Help.com as they happen

Mouse over the map for 2 seconds to see an expanded, interactive view

frankenberry6 #
An Unknown Location | 1 year ago (26 minutes after post)

first of all, marriage has been around way longer than the christian church and i believe Christians need to quit acting like they “own it” the ancient Chinese married, the ancient Egyptians married, ancient Romans, etc, etc. marriage was more like a business deal between two land owners or countries, the need for it to be a man and a woman was to produce an heir to govern the land if the man died. it had nothing to do with love or religion. so therefore the church needs to understand their position is mute. Unless they want to say it has to be between a man and woman because it’s only purpose is to procreate. in that case everyone who marries should have to have a child.which is NOT the case. nowadays marriage is about love , so on the basis of that EVERYONE should be allowed to marry when they want to pronounce their love and commitment regardless of the gender of the participants. this is simply logic. religion needs to butt out so to speak.this is about the pursuit of happiness that we are all allowed in the U.S , or so they say:)

This account has been deactivated.

roofdonkey 8 #
An Unknown Location | 1 year ago (29 minutes after post)

I think if Jesus walked the earth today, He would actually hang out with certain homosexuals and others that the majority of the contemporary church today thinks are “sinners”

Help me with: This is the serenade I performed for my gf on her birthday.