|
|
I was doing the video at one wedding where the very next day the bride gave birth. That would have been some video if the baby had decided it wanted to see what all the noise was about.
I thought the NYT crowd was only supposed to refer to these entities as fetuses?????
It's not only weddings.
Everywhere you look it's "Hey, look at me!".....either with skin tight low rider pants with rolls of fat hanging over, tattoos, knobs and bolts in the eyebrows and noses, purple hair, etc.
There's something wrong when people look to total strangers in society for attention.
Catholic marriage is not supposed to be a "symbol" of anything. It is supposed to be a real covenant in which a man and a woman give themselves completely to each other in a reflection of the love between the Father and the Son, and between Christ and his Church.
A child is the result of that love.
"But for brides like Ms Pampillonia, however, etiquette was not on top of the priority list."
Yeah, no s**t.
"They're older, they're more confident," said Carley Roney, editor in chief of The Knot
But hardly makes them smarter.
Better late than never. With abortion on demand, you have to respect somebody who chooses to have the kid and get married as well.
But I'm not sure why it needs an article in the New York Times, a fancy white wedding dress, or a large, formal wedding. A quiet wedding would have been better.
I guess not anymore.
When you decide to wear the white...I would like to be there to cheer you on.... All My Respect,..... FP
Gross
Meanwhile, at the reception, that gaggle of "friends" are laughing at you behind your back and calling you Lucky to have conned the guy to marry you.
Oh, yes, dear, tis true....
(OK, so it's a prom dress. You get the idea)
This is just total ego mania. It seems more an extortion for presents than a desire for weddings.
She should just get civily married to ensure the child is legit and then either have a VERY fast wedding they can afford or just wait until AFTER the baby is born for the religious ceremony.
I really get the "gimme presents" vibe from this.
Church - on - time ....
Mission Inn? As an almost native-born Riversider, I must commend the Padillas on their excellent choice. Beautiful place, and it was good enough for Dick and Pat Nixon.
That said...four-inch heels? I'm a guy and I'm wincing at that. What was she thinking?
I wonder if the bride has bothered to think ahead, say about 8 years ahead, to the moment when her daughter, flipping through the pages of family photos, comes across her parents' wedding picture, showing a very pregnant bride. Since daughters conceived out of wedlock tend to also get pregnant out of wedlock, the mother may not be so eager for her daughter to know all the details. These bulging brides are making a very large mistake.
But the sad reality is that these couples are usually not active members of any church before the weddings. In many cases, they scour around looking for any church, minister, priest, rabbi to perform a religious service. They just want the "old fashioned idea" of a big church wedding, but have shunned all other moral and religious traditions. And, after the wedding the couples hardly ever attend services again. Except, perhaps, a few return for the child's baptism, bris, confirmation, or on holidays.
I cannot understand their rationale. They flaunt their "modern attitudes," but they insist on the traditional blessing of a church. Why not just do this marriage with a Justice of the Peace, and leave religion out of it if you are not a religious person?
It is so hypocritical. For so many there is no scantity, no recognition of the spiritual union they are making, and no honoring of God for the gift of love He has given them to share between themselves and with a precious new life. It is just symbolic and materialistic. They are full of pride, self-importance, and an in-your-face attitude. It is just a sham, and very sad. One can only hope (and pray) that at some point they will return to their/some religion and re-evaluate themselves and their priorities.
