Do you support the legalization of same sex marriage?
Yes, but allow churches the right to refuse same-sex ceremonies
However, If a church wants to refuse providing a ceremony for a same-sex marriage, I think they should have the right to. Most churches believe being gay is a sin, yeah, so they're usually going to refuse a same-sex marriage. But I want to clarify that I don't entirely agree with that. Having an attraction to the same sex, being gay, isn't technically a sin. It only becomes a sin when one acts on it and actually gets into a same sex relationship. There are plenty of members of my own church who identify as gay, but have just chosen not to have a same sex relationship, or even an opposite sex relationship. And other people who aren't part of a church are completely within their rights to have a same sex relationship and marriage if they so choose. That's fine, they believe different things. I think there just needs to be a layer of understanding, with no ill will really meant toward either party when asking for a same sex marriage ceremony. The church should just politely clarify "Hey, we don't do that here," and whoever is asking can just say "alright, we'll take it somewhere else."
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
It's actually not marriage! Marriage is a man and a woman faithfully bound in union for life, never to seperate! What your talking about they make another term for BULL S**T
@9CJ6CB67mos7MO
Marriage was created long before Christianity, so stop kidding yourself. There’s no strong reason to not allow gay marriage other than because “It’S a SiN” which is just the most arbitrary and garbage argument in existence. Marriage is a lifelong union between people, not specifically stated to be between a man and a woman.
@Ind3p3ndentEmmaDemocrat7mos7MO
Well, you're right that marriage predates Christianity, but it's not just about religion. Many cultures throughout history have had their own unique definitions of marriage, not all of which have included same-sex unions. In fact, the concept of marriage as a romantic union is relatively recent. In many cultures, including some still today, marriages were arranged as strategic or economic alliances, with little to no regard for the feelings of the individuals involved. Therefore, the argument could be made that the traditional definition of marriage is not just between a man and a woman, but specifically for the purpose of procreation and establishing familial ties. How would you respond to that?
@9CJ6CB67mos7MO
The definition doesn’t have to be exclusive, nor should it be for the sake of so many people’s lives. If the definition is this fluid, that sounds like all the more reason to let it reach the widest amount of people. Here’s what I’d consider to be mine: marriage is a union of people into a family that is consented to between them. It could be a union on the basis of tax reasons, love, friendship, or simply to be closer to those people, whether they be one or many above the age of 18. That’s what I’d consider it to be in my eyes, at least on the legal side.
