why do straight couples deserve marriage???

Lady Heather - posted on 06/02/2012

Rofl. One day billions of years ago some male protons and female neutrons liked what they saw. The wedding night was the big bang and thus - the beginning of time!

Did I get it right?

Nicole - posted on 06/02/2012

marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN and its been that way since the beginning of time. but thats what i believe.

Jo - posted on 08/17/2011

I see marriage as a commitment between to people, I am a lesbian who has had a "commitment" ceremony with my partner because it is not "legal" for us to marry in the state in which we live.I believe that marriges like families come in all shapes,sizes, backrounds etc. there should be No bounderies in this day and age to discrimanation whatsoever. Gay,straight, biracial,different religions what ever. love is just that. you dont as those questions when it happens... love just does.

Sal - posted on 08/14/2011

yep my response was a bit abrupt too, i will rewrite it...religion is a crock of shit when it is used as a way to justify bigoted views, not in general....

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 08/14/2011

I agree Dyan. My mom always says you should question everything. She went to Catholic high school during the height of the Civil Rights movement and was told by a nun that the Bible was written by humans and open for interpretation.

Rosie - posted on 08/14/2011

i believe typical organized religion is a crock of shit. but noticed how i stated i am thankful for those who choose to be kind and not follow the bible (only the parts the suit them mind you) like it's the literal word of god.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 08/14/2011

The thing is that not all religious leaders believe that same sex marriage should be banned. There was a priest at the church my grandparents went to who was excommunicated for performing same sex marriages back in the late 90's early 2000 http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l... (You'll have to scroll down to get to father Callen)

Besides not everyone believes that religion is a crock of shit as you say Salli. Many people have it to help them and they don't believe their religious book word for word, just as a guide.

Sal - posted on 08/14/2011

hmmm religion is a crock of shit.....i so agree with you when the zelots use it to justify their bigoted views

Rosie - posted on 08/13/2011

actually megan another anti-gay representative named phillip hinkle of indiana just got busted trying to get some man-ass through craigslist. interesting how that works eh??:)

i'm also with jen that i feel like i just died a little when you said you wouldn't mind if you lost the right to vote. do you realize how many women worked tirelessly so you had the right to do that? i'm flabberghasted by your nonchalant attitude. you really don't have a clue do you?

i've taken many steps back to try to figure out how people can discriminate so freely, and i can't come up with any good reason to let it happen. there are freedoms in this country and not allowing certain individuals freedom simply because they don't follow your religion is archaic, and not at all in line with the ideas that america was built upon.
i'd like you to answer this. how on earth do you justify being so discriminatory? how can you look at your religion which is supposed to be filled with love and caring and concern for one another, and still want to deny people the same rights as everyone else. christianity is the biggest crock of shit. i'm so glad there are many christians out there that can see past the hypocrisy of the bible, and think for themselves for the good of others.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 08/13/2011

@ Nikki: The Defense of Marriage act is ridiculous. My bet is that most of the politicians who are for that act are busy fornicating with someone other than their spouses and are still trying to make themselves look good. I believe instead of poking their noses into people's bedrooms they should practice what Jesus would do and stop cutting funding for poverty stricken people in welfare, medicare and medicaide.

So because blacks in this country were sold by their own cheifs back in Africa to slave traders for liquor that means that we should not want same sex marriages legal? Ookay. Yeah maybe that also means that my brother shouldn't've been able to marry his wife because she's 1/2 black and 1/2 white and some states still have it on their books that interacial marriages are illegal. So maybe we shouldn't've had that law revoked either right? Because that's something people had to fight for because other people were against it. So that made it wrong.

I feel it's pretty disrespectful that you say you wouldn't care if your right to vote was taken away. I'm from Western New York the Womens' rights movement practically originated in my state and in my area of New York. Why not just say you want your rights to your children if you got a divorce revoked as well and your rights to your personal property. Because that's pretty much what happened before we had the right to vote. Just like Jen, part of me just died there.

Why should we as Christians (Ok so I don't exactly practice anymore) have the copyright on what marriage is? It's not like we created the institution anyway. The pagans did even before the Jewish religion was founded. Of course back then they started with a year and a day ceremonies and went from there to handfasting. But it's the same idea. God said love one another He didn't discriminate so why should we? The Bible has more admonitions towards heterosexuals than it does towards homosexuals- that doesn't mean God loves heterosexuals less, it just means that we need more supervision.

Jen - posted on 08/13/2011

@Nikki "There are states that are trying to force businesses to provide services to same sex couples( caterers, etc) the beauty of capitalism is that you can do business with who you CHOOSE to do business with. But you are taking away that freedom to please another group pf people. Doesn;t make sense. "

Then it's perfectly ok for businesses to turn away non-whites at the door. It's perfectly ok for an upscale store to turn away someone they don't feel would 'look' good in their store. It's perfectly ok for a baker to say, 'sorry, I don't do any marriages involving Christians.'

It really isn't any different.
And if you reallyl think you wouldn't care if you lost your right to vote, I must say that a part of me just died.

Nikki - posted on 08/13/2011

Ok on the legal issue. Anybody remember the Defense of Marriage Act. And on the other issues. They are my beliefs but what you guys said isn't entirely true. There are states that are trying to force businesses to provide services to same sex couples( caterers, etc) the beauty of capitalism is that you can do business with who you CHOOSE to do business with. But you are taking away that freedom to please another group pf people. Doesn;t make sense.

As far as the women voting thing, why would it matter, only about a quarter of us turn out to the polls anyway. But no I don't think it would bother me.

And remember that slaves that were sold in this country were sold to the slave traders by people of their own race. Take a step back and look at it from a different perspective.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 08/12/2011

Okay so Brittany Spears having her quickie marriage in Vegas doesn't cheapen the sanctity of marriage, but Bob and Joe getting married would? That confuses me. Seriously, is the world going to end because Barbie and Teresa went to go look for china patterns at Macy's?

Sorry I'm really tired and can't think of anything to say after that.

Lucy - posted on 08/12/2011

Nikki- The idea that anything that has had to be fought for should never happen seems an odd one to me. It suggests that women shouldn't have the vote, black people should still be second class citizens, poor people should be excluded from education, children should not be protected from exploitation etc, because all these things had to be fought for. That's not a world I would want to live in, thank you.

Also, you seem confused about the vast difference between personal belief and what is legally enforced (or not). You could believe fervently that there are fluorescent green monkeys on the moon for all I care, it wouldn't effect my life one little bit. But if you were in government and insisted on legislating against people who didn't share your belief in moon dwelling monkeys, and went as far as to prevent them being allowed to marry, gain employment, have children etc, that would be wrong. Surely you can see that?

You don't have to go out and hug a gay person, shucks, you don't even have to interact with them if it's that difficult. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same legal rights as you. If two people in a relationship meet the criteria for the legal definition of marriage, then that's what it should be called, whether it fits your personal definition or not.

Johnny - posted on 08/11/2011

Marriage has never been solely about procreation. Whoever is passing that idea off is just using it as a convenient way to dismiss the legitimacy of same-sex marriages. Marriage was historically a business arrangement between fathers or even kings to end feuds, build alliances, extend influence, get business opportunities, etc. Much of the time neither member of the spousal pact was given any choice in the matter. Other times the husband was either making the deal directly or was involved in the agreement somehow. The wife was not given a voice at all. The creation of children within the marriage pact was simply the cementation of the agreement.

Humans, like all creatures, clearly have a biological desire and need to procreate. But despite the inability to do so independently, gays and lesbians still have the desire to have children. Just like straight couples (throughout recorded history) have done when they are unable to conceive naturally, they find other methods such as adoption (or modern day science). Infertile couples have been adopting children for a long time. There is no historical incidence of the infertile being forced to divorce. (well except for Henry VIII)

No one is questioning your right to not be involved in gay marriage or to believe that for those that share your beliefs that it should not be allowed. What is being questioned is your right to have your rights supercede other's. You may feel that your inability to tell everyone else what to do is a persecution, but that certainly does not fit with the definition of what it means to be persecuted. You are allowed to practice your beliefs, no one is forcing you to marry a woman, to perform gay marriages, or have them occur within your religious institution. That would be persecution. They are simply asking that you do not force your beliefs on to other people and not persecute them. It is exactly the same as how your choice to follow your Christian beliefs does not in anyway persecute me as someone who chooses not to. The persecution would only begin at the point where you force me to follow your belief system. Which is why the people persecuted in this circumstance are the same-sex couples who wish to marry and not those who are being condemned for not allowing them.

"don't you think there is a reason that people are having to fight to get something that goes against even recent statutes."

No, I don't have to wonder. Our societies change and evolve. People learn and grow. Do you spend a lot of time wondering why black people or women had to fight for their equality rights? I suppose that made the people who were denying them right?

Rosie - posted on 08/11/2011

how do you not understand that you can think that all you want? nobody is taking your right to think and behave how YOU would like to behave. but why do you have the right to take away other peoples rights to think and behave how they want to? isn't this a free country? you get to do what you want, i get to do what i want?

Nikki - posted on 08/11/2011

What i don't understand is that it is okay to fight for everyones' "rights" except those that are inherent. Why have marriage at all? because we as humans have the need to have stable partnerships. Animals in single sex environments spontaneously change gender in order to procreate. Gay and Lesbian humans don't change gender spontaneously. transgender persons have to hav esurgery to become that way. From a biological standpoint it doesn;t make sense. From MY religious stand point it isn't right. It is not my place to judge but it is my RIGHT to be able to practice MY religion without persecution too. And it is my RIGHT to protect my children from anything I see that could harm them mentally, emotionally, or physically. So yes I believe in the sanctity of MARRIAGE. and that MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman.

Even in ancient societies where homosexuality was practiced. in the case of men, the person who was subjected to penetration was considered a lower class person or even a slave. Why allow the mistakes of past civilizations to boil up again?

I don't think that same sex marriage is something that should be allowed. I am sorry if you disagree, but that is the great thing about our nation. WE DON"T HAVE TO AGREE. As far as deserving marriage, heterosexual marriage has always been accepted, don't you think there is a reason that people are having to fight to get something that goes against even recent statutes.

And referencing the question, polygamy and gay marriage are two seperate issues. One is religious and one is social, you can't equate the two.

Johnny - posted on 08/11/2011

"Why does it have to be called a marriage? Most of you know my stance on this issue already. The long and short of it is, we will never agree. I do not this that same sex "marriage" is appropriate. I believe that the principles set out in my religion say that the purpose of a marriage is to produce children, and to raise them up to be godly adults."

You will notice the word that I bolded from your statement Nikki. It is the most important. It is your religion. There are a great many people in who do not share your religious beliefs. I do not understand AT ALL why you think that they should have to follow your beliefs, that your beliefs should govern their lives in any way, or that your religion should have the right to determine for those that do not believe in it what the term marriage should apply to. If your religion is opposed to gay marriage then you should definitely not marry a woman. That would be wrong. But it is NOT my religion and if I wish to marry a woman your beliefs should have no bearing on my right to do so.

Nikki - posted on 08/11/2011

FYI megan, you can be covered under insurance in a civil partnership. Most insurances don't say spuose anymore they say partner, or domestic partner. How do I know? I have worked with gay and lesbian coworkers and they were able to use that clause to get coverage for their partners, as well as unmarried heterosexual employees. And hospital visitation is an issue between you and your doctor. Most hospitals only allow one or two birth coaches for L&D I was able to have my whole family just by asking. The insurance is not an issue.

Lucy - posted on 08/10/2011

I find it annoying that certain religions feel they have the monopoly on the word "marriage".

As a word and a concept it existed well before the advent of most major world religions, including Christianity and Islam.

Therefore, the idea that if a partnership doesn't fulfil the Christian ideal of marriage it cannot be defined that way is utter nonsense. In the UK, two straight people who choose a civil marriage (as most do), are not allowed to include any religious references in the ceremony. But it is still considered in every sense, a marriage, whether the couple have a religious belief or not. Not a civil partnership. Why on earth should only straight couples be afforded this right?

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 08/10/2011

It just sounds a bit archaic to me that marrital unions should only be to produce children. Children are expensive and messy.

And how do I know what you meant? From what I read it sounds like you're saying that since people can't produce children biologically then the union isn't validated. That to me is wrong. If you're not I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sensitive about that because my paternal grandmother acted like my brother and I weren't her grandchildren and kep telling my mom that if she kept praying she;d be blessed with a baby of her own. It was really hurtful and annoying.

Civil unions are a complete joke, you can't even legally vist your partner when he or she is in the hospital because you're not officially a family member. You can't be covered under their better health insurance plan because you're not officially a family member.

And how would you like it if you were considered only legally married in certain States or countries? I'm sure that wouldn't seem fair to you either. The US has already proven once that separate but equal was unconstitutional, I can only hope that happens again.

Rosie - posted on 08/10/2011

no nikki i'm not saying that at all. a gay couple does not have the same rights as a heterosexual one. there's a couple right now in california one is an immigrant from australia, the other is a us citizen. they are a civil union, yet somehow the australian one is being deported because of DOMA. if this were a heterosexual couple, the immigrant would not be deported.
the military doesn't have to legally recognize civil unions. they don't get benefits from their spouse fighting in a different country, ike any other married couple would. that's what i'm talking about.

i'm saying it should be called a marriage because seperate but equal (but not really equal) is a bunch of crap. you use that drinking fountain over there-i'll use this nice one over here made for my kind. you have your shitty movie theater, we'll have our fancy nice one over here. you get a civil union with none of the benefits of marriage, i'll enjoy my nice marriage and all the benefits that go along with it. it's ridiculous, and i can't believe anybody supports this way of thinking anymore.

Nikki - posted on 08/10/2011

but the legal rights aren't really the issue. What rights are questioned? The only thing that is different and can't be attained is tax filing status. Medical insurance, medical power of attorney, property ownership, can all be joint. The only two things are the taxes and adoption or surrugacy. Adoption/surrogacy for gay or lesbian parents is considered single parent adoption and the other "parent" is listed as a guardian. A child cannot biologically have two mothers or two fathers, so I don't think that is an issue. Why does it matter what it is called? The adoption/surrogacy thing will remain the same. so the ony issue is taxes. Are you saying it should be called a marriage so that people can keep from giving the government too much money?

Rosie - posted on 08/10/2011

maybe so things are equal? or would you be happy to have your relationship called a civil union, not afforded the same rights legally, and have homosexual unions be called marriages and have rights?

Nikki - posted on 08/10/2011

Megan, that is not what was meant and you know it.

It is physically impossible for two men or two women to conceive a child naturally. And as far as your husband, he cheated which by my religion is grounds for divorce. I don't really care how my opinion "sits" with anyone as it is my opinion. Using stupid excuses to invalidate an opinion doesn't make me look bad, it reflects on you. One of the main purposes of a marriage is to produce children, I also believe that a woman should stay home and raise those children and take care of her house and her husband if it is financially possible. I just don't see why it is so important to have a word (marriage) included. And as far ass if all states recognize civil unions, all the ones that I have lived in afford shared property rights and inclusion on medical insurance and as far as powers of attorney go, you have to have a document to that effect anyway. It is just not an argument that I feel has much grounds because it is a legal union not a religious marriage, so why does it have to be stated that way?

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 08/10/2011

Nikki saying that the main goal of marriage is that you have to produce children means that my straigh, married for 37 years parents aren't really married or have failed at marriage because they adopted my brother and I. And that would also say that my 1st husband who cheated on me didn't fail at marriage because we did have a daughter together. That doesn't sit well with me.

Tasha - posted on 08/10/2011

But Nikki, what about straight married couples who never have children, or adopt, many gay couples adopt and raise wonderful children. And those kids deserve to have the benifit of their parents, if they choose, to be married and all the things that go with it, im thinking mainly of the medical and property issues. And im not sure but are civil unions law and recognized in all states? If so then i guess its just a label after that, if not then even if they are legally the same, they arent offered equally to all residents of the U.S. I think its about love and how you choose to dedicate yourselves to eachother, not having children specifically.

Nikki - posted on 08/10/2011

Marriage at it's core is a religious practice. If you don't believe the religion why fight for it. Civil unions are legally the same as marriage. Why does it have to be called a marriage? Most of you know my stance on this issue already. The long and short of it is, we will never agree. I do not this that same sex "marriage" is appropriate. I believe that the principles set out in my religion say that the purpose of a marriage is to produce children, and to raise them up to be godly adults. Since a same secx marriage can't do that. it isn't really a marriage by that stand because there is no possiblity, or physical way, that that can be accomplished.

Tasha - posted on 08/09/2011

I dont think that its straight people deserve marriage, i think that when the laws of marriage where put into place the idea of a same sex marriage just wasnt a thought. That being said it is obviosly, in my opinion, something that needs to be changed to reflect the society we now live in. Im not gay, but i dont think that if you are that you should be denied some of the basic rights that straight people enjoy being married. A human relationship deserves respect, even if you dont agree with it.

Emma - posted on 08/09/2011

Our president has 4 wives lol

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 08/09/2011

My state of New York just passed a same sex marriage act making them the largest State in the Union to legallize gay marriage. Meanwhile in southern states resturaunt owners can legally kick out gay couples just because they don't believe in gay rights. And some conservative groups are still working on trying to overturn the law in New York.

Sanctity of marriage- sorry but I was married to a straight man who cheated on me with another woman and acted like I made him cheat. I fail to see how straight people should be the only ones to get married due to the fact that we were born straight from that experiance alone.

Canada has had legallized Gay marriage since 2005 and aside from having Harper as Prime Minister nothing bad has happened here.

I'm not sure if I agree with polygamy. But I haven't done enough research on the subject to give an accurate debate on it.

Emma - posted on 08/09/2011

Well in South Africa straight, gay and polygmous marriage's are legal. And the sky has yet to fall.
I don't know why people feel so threatened by Consenting adults officially being recognized as married and enjoying the benefits married people are afforded regarding estate law ect ect
I think it boils down to them wanting to feel superior to other's like styles.

Constance - posted on 07/14/2011

I can defidently say the ones doing the most and loudest preaching about living in sin, or being a gay married couple. Are the ones doing the most sinning. See the pattern.

I believe that as long as it is consenting and willing adults then it should be ok. Whether same sex, multiple wives or multiple husband at the same time then it should be ok. What someone does in their lives is nobody buisness except for their own. Unless someone is being forced then people need to mind hteir own buisness.

Johnny - posted on 07/14/2011

Marriage is a right. One that each and every one of us should have. Regardless of whether our relationship fits into someone else's moral compass or we fuck it up multiple times. As long as it happens between people capable of and free to choose and consent, no one else has the right to interfere. I keep waiting for the constitutional amendment banning divorce to be tabled by the "moral majority" but I suspect they do not wish to give up their out if necessary. Apparently hypocrisy doesn't bother them.

Sal - posted on 07/14/2011

and there is nothing stopping christians to remarry as often as they choose, the church might not marry them but they can legally marry at a whim

Sal - posted on 07/14/2011

my mum (who isn;'t divorced by the way) thinks gays shouldn't get married, so i don;t think it is just the uber christains that have that opinion, and being divorced twice is mulit, and that really isn;t much of an oddity in our wrld

Sapphire - posted on 07/14/2011

Actually, I am not so sure that multiple divorcees are all that anti-gay marriage. I think a majority of the anti-gay marriage movement comes from Christian & Mormom groups who declare their traditional family values to be supreme. I am sure you will find plenty of divorced Christians (not so sure about Mormons though), but I am not so sure about this population endorsing multiple divorces. Of course I haven;t done a damn thing to research the population of multiple divorced Christians & Mormoms so I could be way off base.

Johnny - posted on 07/14/2011

It makes zero sense. I have no patience for any anti gay marriage excuses I have ever heard. They are all complete bs. I felt so much better about entering the institution of marriage knowing that where I live any two legal consenting adults can join me.