SO here is what I know an think very strongly, From a scientology point of view when two dudes make nasty disgusting whatever they make nothing except a mess, an an when two women try it does nothing as well, SO its just like when you try an connect a male to male water hose to put out a fire it DOES NOTHING DOES NOT WORK!! BUT when you put a male to female connection water flows through perfect an the job is completed, I am a christian and I look at it as when a man an woman AS IT WAS MEANT THE WAY iT WORKS!!! out comes a beautiful baby so no matter what you cant look at it as right cause it dont freaking work END OF STORY!!!!!

my friend is such a bigg fagg and he is thsoo happy! now he can be divorcssed and missserable with over half of the normal people!! I wonder who will pay alimony. thits isth tsho grreat!

It's worked for me for 58 years, and boy is it good.

Methinks I smells something bigger brewing, maybe even a diversionary tactic? I stand impartial on the issue, and have been watchful of the sentiment regarding the "institution" of modern marriage recently. I consider myself bi, consider the LGBT community & psychology extremely complex, & secretly bullish in terms of their attitudes towards the heterosexual community. I do actually stray toward the conventional definition of marriage, and just as you would classify an individual based on sexual orientation and preference, the classifications of these unions should not reflect the their counterparts as they are in fact different (I do see both angles). The irony actually behind not creating an individual parallel establishment is that it embraces the actual conventional lifestyle and only mimics heterosexual culture, which we fail to accept. This blatant paradox has always been the crux of the argument against the LGBT community and marriage, and should be addressed if we feel we are going to create a comprehensive argument.

What we are doing now however is trying to recreate the wheel... One thing of concern, of the many years on this planet we decide that this is just now legal, or even equivalent to heterosexual biological family structures? Why not before? Was there something biological superior that we're missing or was there? Maybe we've reached the point in our society where we are just as jaded, disillusioned & imagining to defer our prejudices based on "biological sex" in this world as something that doesn't exist, when there are clear differences. With the acceptance of this however, there is a definitive cost to the tight knit biological family structures which we try to ignore, that should be consider pondering an alternative lifestyle.

99 you are the type of christian that everyone hates. We are all people so we should all have the right to be gay. (not saying its a choise but it was for me to go Bi so I don't see any difference to it.)

I agree with Allright, it takes a man and a women to naturally pro-create. Therefore, I believe that's where marraige (ooops! Spelled that wrong!) applies. Gays can have a union, partnership but calling it marraige, to me , goes against the laws of nature! And how does the kid determine who's the mommy and who's the daddy? Sorry, it's just not right! Has nothing to do with the Constitution either. And I am NOT a right wing nut job! I am middle of the road.

it takes a man and a women to naturally pro-create.

Why is the ability to procreate critical to the value of marriage? We let people who cannot (or will not) procreate get married all the time.

Gays can have a union, partnership but calling it marraige, to me , goes against the laws of nature!

What does nature have to do with marriage? Marriage is a human invention. How can LGBT relationships be against nature if many many animals engage in it?

And how does the kid determine who's the mommy and who's the daddy?

The American Psychological Association has already done research into the matter and found that children raised by LGBT couples grow up no worse off than children raised by heterosexual couples.

How children fare. Research shows that children raised by lesbian and gay parents develop in the same positive ways that children raised by heterosexual parents do, and that same-sex couples are just as capable of providing a supportive environment for children, said Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD, of the University of Virginia.

http:// www .apa.org/monitor/2010/10/same-sex.aspx

Sorry, it's just not right!

Ok - you are entirely welcome to your opinion. Imposing it upon the freedoms of others, however, is another matter.

Has nothing to do with the Constitution either.

Yes it does. 14th Amendment - equal protection clause.

And I am NOT a right wing nut job! I am middle of the road.

53% of Americans disagree with you: www .gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

I am very excited that Maryland is pursuing LGBT equality with the same fervor as the great State of Washington. It's a great day!

This country has become a huge cesspool, gay rights is just one of the big floaters on top. PRAYS JESUS! GLORY Be to GOD! --that's MY right

SashaFem Said it best she / he i don't know hit the nail on the head, stating its an invasion of a given life style. its not that everyone is against the lifestyle, its an invasion of a set standard. and it is in some peoples minds a degradation of that lifestyle, making it less then what it represents. go ahead and have your life partner, form your union but don't call it holy matrimony that'sreligious, that's out of pretext. that to a believer is a punch in the face, not a slap but a punch. you make a mockery of what we hold sacred. and you wan't respect from that?

WoW . Most of you are saying humans cannot judge. You are right. God does and will . The Bible says Homosexuality is a sin and those will not inherit the Kingdom of God . It is your life and you will have to live with your decisions at the Great White Throne. I do not judge. God does.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The satan has won another battle for the souls of the wicked. What a sad day for humanity. :(

BIG 1, I am not pro-homosexual, in fact I stopped visiting the beaches of Maryland as well as Cape Cod years ago, the aviance is way to repulsive. I am also not hyper- religious, but I do like to think there is a god. And why is that so wrong? Even if it is not true, isn't it nice to think that one day we will see our loved that have passed again, or that angels protect us everyday? Without faith in heaven there is no accountability, anything goes. Of course to believe in God, one must believe in the Devil, and it's these types of behaviors that reinforce that belief.

You know, I don't think women that are infertile should be able to marry, men with low sperm counts, nope they can't marry either. If you had to have a hysterectomy and can't procreate, no you can't marry either.

Do you see the fallacy of that argument? Marriage isn't just about making babies.

Donnie, your religious beliefs do not belong in policy or law. No religion should dictate law or policy, you immediately started infringing on someone elses rights.

We are not a Christian nation, we have freedom of religion. I don't know what kind of low IQ idiot thinks ok for them to force their beliefs on everyone else in the nation but if someone utters a word about questioning their rights, we get a fire and brimstone speech.

@Richard,

Whether or not procreation is essential to a marriage, gays can't do it. The ability to procreate is critical to the survival of the species. People who cannot procreate still fit the definition of a man and woman, which is why they are allowed to marry. I would say marriage is a human tradition, but asserting it to be a human invention is going to far. (I think someone would have patented it by now :)) Ok, just because animals engage in a behavior doesn't make that behavior normal FOR HUMANS! Monkies fling poo and certain animals eat each other. Those behaviors would be abnormal to any human. Why should deviant sexual behavior in animals be a guide to humans? The 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. The Supreme court doesn't expend special cases based on sexual orientation. Given the underhanded nature of any legislation gays are around, I'm skeptical when I see numbers on a gay and lesbian survey.

Donnie Kingery,

How interesting! Where did you get that translation of Corinthians? Because my translation does not say

“nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers”

I cannot find that anywhere in my Bible.

Mine says:

“nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners”

I wonder, does your Constitution say something different as well?

D Buck-2239568,

"but don't call it holy matrimony"

We see here that you fail to understand the separation of powers. There is nothing holy about acquiring a marriage license from the government. Maybe you should keep your church out of my government. Thank you!

...and then some people were born "pedophiles" and "rapists". I suppose they all have an argument that its "ok" too. Just wondering where and when we all realize something is wrong. From the straight persons eyes....its all kind of f'd up. Sorry if your gay, but thats your problem. As much as you want everyone to except it, keep in mind, its not like your born black, hispanic, chinese, or white. Your just messed up in our eyes....so good luck with that.

we will just agree to disagree. sorry! keep being proud though, and flying that 'Rainbow" flag. THe Nazis thought they were right and were flying their flag too.....didnt make them right though, did it??

Jim-952823,

Funny, The Nazis held your position on most everything you just stated. So good to hear you are a proud Nazis!

Now let me ask you, how do you know you are attracted to the opposite sex?

Jan, "we are not a christian nation"? I guess In God we trust on our currency, and God bless america, and one nation under God... has nothing to do with christian beliefs? You have a constitutional right of freedom of religion. Or to believe in no religion at all. That's what FREEDOM is all about. Has nothing to do with rather or not, this country was put together on christian beliefs or not. But as todays society finds more and more ways to further themselves from God. Such as spending millions of taxpayers dollars to take a cross off of a county seal. Teaching homosexuality in childrens schools. Or wanting to turn your own state into another Sodom and Gomorrah... Just shows how out of touch so many are these days. Just like scripture in the good book tells you. I think I'll stick with the Bible. And when I die, and I'm wrong. I guess nothing lost then.

Einstein-3156002,

So while you will vehemently defend your idea of freedom, you will spit on everyone else's freedom?

As the Acts of the Apostles says in the Bible, we have no right to declare unclean anything that God has made (Acts of the Apostles 10:15). To do so, in fact, is a sin.

P.S. Sodom and Gomorrah was about inhospitable behavior, not homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is more representative of your behavior than anything the homosexuals have done.

TDC says:

As the Acts of the Apostles says in the Bible, we have no right to declare unclean anything that God has made (Acts of the Apostles 10:15). To do so, in fact, is a sin.

P.S. Sodom and Gomorrah was about inhospitable behavior, not homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is more representative of your behavior than anything the homosexuals have done.

Steve's Response:

I'm sorry TDC but you can make the Bible say anything you want; it's called private interpretation (II Peter 1:20). Actually the true believer does have the right and authority to declare things unclean if God calls it unclean. If you believe, you will speak what God wants spoken. God not only calls homosexuality unclean (Romans 1:24 – read context), but in the KJV He calls it filthy (II Peter 2:7) regarding the rampant homosexuality of S & G. If the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was about inhospitable behavior alone, there were plenty of other nations and cities God would have allowed to be destroyed. In truth, homosexuality is the result of idolatry in one form or another. They go hand-in-hand. When an individual begins to stray from the one true God he/she begins to open themselves up to a world of hurt and devil-spirit influences. Homosexuality is the lowest of vices in God's eyes because the individual develops a reprobate mind, useless to God and useless to society from a spiritual point of view. The minds of the people in Sodom and Gomorah were so reprobate that righteousness could no longer exist. Both the records in Romans and Genesis verifies this. It all looks good on the outside, charitable, friendly, equality for all, civil rights, but it is an incredible slap in the face to God. Romans Chapter 1 unfolds all this and that’s why God had it written. God wanted the true believers protected from this type of exercised spiritual harassment in the same way he wanted just Lot delivered physically from their influences. It states in Romans 1 that God “gave them up” no less than 3 times. Literally translated, “God gave them over to the power of another.” Once you’ve turned yourself over, by the freedom of your will, to these type influences it can lead only in one direction: downwards. It’s not that God wants homosexuals and those who consent to it dead, it’s simply that they are worthy of death because they worthless, from a spiritual vantage point, to God and his people. There is no profit spiritually from homosexuality. For the true believers, our contest is summarized in Ephesians 6:12.

The problem here is that you said it exactly:

you can make the Bible say anything you want

and then you do exactly that.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrha is not about rampant homosexuality. Not once in the story was there a male on male sex act… THERE WAS NO GAY SEX!!! You have chosen to make the story about that topic, which it is not. And then you use II Peter 2:7 to define your stretching of meaning, too funny!

Sodom and Gomorrha : Sodom is referenced multiple times in the Bible as an example of great sinning. And what might that sin be?

In Isaiah 1:10-17 it is thought to be injustice, not rescuing the oppressed, defending the orphan, pleading for the widow. In Jeremiah 23:14 it is adultery. In Ezekiel 16:48-49 it is the sin of not aiding the "poor and needy." In Zephaniah 2:8-11 the sin is bullying, boasting and pride. In the Wisdom of Solomon it is "the bitter hatred of strangers."

http://www.believeoutloud.com/boltoday/20111230/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing

Jim-952823 - In response to your comment about comparing homosexuals with pedophiles and rapists, the point you miss is one of rights. Sexual criminals are criminals because they violate the rights of others. Homosexuals do not violate your rights with their sexuality. You, however, are advocating the violation of their rights as human beings. So who really is in a position of being able to holler 'foul'? I don't think it's you.

You nuts obviously miss the relating the two. I guess the real lesson here. Is never underestimate a Gay's ability to SPIN!

Einst: There IS no relating of the two to miss.

Sorry I've been out of it - finals week.

Whether or not procreation is essential to a marriage, gays can't do it. The ability to procreate is critical to the survival of the species.

How will granting marriage to LGBT Americans threaten the survival of the species? This makes no sense to me. Heterosexual people will still get married and have kids. LGBT people may have kids via adoption or in-vitro. Either way, this is a red herring.

I would say marriage is a human tradition, but asserting it to be a human invention is going to far.

Who came up with the idea then? If you want to claim that God invented it, have fun (I would disagree). Marriage is still a civil contract which makes God's approval irrelevant.

Ok, just because animals engage in a behavior doesn't make that behavior normal FOR HUMANS!

The argument was that homosexual behavior is not unnatural. Refute the argument. If you want to claim that homosexual behavior is unnatural, back it up with something. Make that something non-religious because we are a secular nation.

The 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. The Supreme court doesn't expend special cases based on sexual orientation.

You are technically correct. The 14th Amendment will apply when the ruling is handed down. It think that it should apply because the reasoning is identical, but I amend my previous statement.

Given the underhanded nature of any legislation gays are around, I'm skeptical when I see numbers on a gay and lesbian survey.

Feel free to post a contradictory national poll or take issue with the methodology of this one. Just saying, "I don't believe it," isn't really an argument.

"The 14th amendment doesn't apply to gays. The Supreme court doesn't expend special cases based on sexual orientation.".....This statement is ever so wrong on many different levels. As of the year 2011 Sexual Orientation was added to the 14th Amendment. You must have missed the Supreme Court ruling that said the US Government could not discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation when joining the United States Military. You must have missed the part where if a private contractor or sub contractor has a government contract for $25000.00 or more they can not discriminated against a person based on their sexual orientation. And you must have missed the part where if a private employer has more than fifteen employees they are not allowed to discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation.....

Good save LR - thanks for having my back.

Richard....just so you know I am not ignoring the APA topic, I'm still digesting it and thinking. I will reply soon.....

LR -

No worries - it's a complex subject. Quite frankly, when one of my posts gets someone thinking, that's just about the best compliment I can get.

I'm not going to sit here and judge anyone. What I am going to say is in the bible it states such things are abominations. People are really testing God these days and openly. I can't judge any man. I have a few gay friends it is not up to me to judge them. I believe through Christ anyone is excepted but if you've ever read the about the wrath God induces when it comes to abomination. Remember God wiped out a whole city for this amongst other things. Men starting to think they invincible now and they can't believe in what they don't see but the question that always comes down to rock bottom is how we did we come into existence. We have all this speculation but yet, not one source, can give you the answer to the question. Yeah you want to pull this monkey and partivle crap......PROVE IT. Honestly, people might as well come plain and say they believe in God but they prefer to go against him and indulge in all their sin,lust, wickedness and deceit......add your love in it. When you add love it's ok. When the sky opens up remember your words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

LoveTruely242,

You need to read this:

Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an “Abomination”?

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%E2%80%9Cabomination%E2%80%9D

Why? Because approving something that is against the narrow minded thinking is against everything that the Republican party seems to stand for anymore.

Representative democracy (electing senators, governors, presidents, etc. to do our bidding) isn't good enough for Republicans whenever an issue is going in a different direction than what they want to allow.

See the recent actions of the US House of Representatives for a more broad example...

Why? Because minorities would never have any rights whatsoever if that were allowed.

I think you just summarized the Republican party's actions of late.

Why is it that when a judge makes a ruling favoring gay rights, he (or she) is an activist who is claimed to ignore the will of the people, but Governor Christie and defy the legislature on the issue and he's not an activist?

Barry,

I assume that is a rhetorical question but if it is not there is a key thing here, he is a Republican.

@Barry

You forgot extremist. Funny how every issue with GOP, when you group together at how Muslim act, you can see lots of similarities like women's rights, religious based government and this.

They shrug it off as those are from extremist, but so far most GOP seems to hell bent on those ideas.

If you saw the interview of Gov. Chubsie, er- I mean Christie, on the show "Morning Joe" (I saw it online, so it can be found) he believed that marriage wasn't a civil right - basically ignoring the S.C. ruling in Loving that marriage is a civil right. And that's why he believed that this should be left up to the "will of the people". So in his mind (what little grey matter there may be) and people of his ilk, that GLBT people should have no rights and therefore, to "give" them any would be an activist act. And then he had the audacity to say that people aren't calling out B.O. for his stance or lack thereof on the same topic. When in fact there have been several people (my self included - toot, toot) that have brought up Obama's failure on ENDA and DOMA - but that's a rant for another day.

exsssssactlly! mike

Every thing should be a people vote, you cant trust a politican.

Look at it from this point of view, its a democracy right! democracies are majority rules right! are you still following OK the governor wants the people to say what they want, that will be law! that's the way its supposed to work. not having the few force something down every ones throat, the governor did the right thing now the people can decide, what happensis what happens. end of subject its not minority rules. or we do as we want screw you. its not a Republican issue its not a Democrat issue its the will of the people, all of the people not just the special interest or the activist / lobbyist but all the people, that's what our country is about. its to bad that lately things have not been that way. my respects to the Governor.

Every thing should be a people vote,

Arrow's Paradox results - meaning nothing gets done.

its a democracy right! democracies are majority rules right

Nope, this country is a republic, not a true democracy. The founding fathers knew enough to not let it be a true democracy.

Nothing gets done now! your right about the Republic but we are no longer a Republic, I kind of wish we were, we lean more to a socialist style of government. I don't care for that very much, and you are also right about the democracy issue, all I know is its all faltering and that's sad. thank you for your post.

Loving vs Virginia settled the issue of interacial marriage.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, was "directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment." In short, "under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

That's fine if you're marrying someone of another RACE not the same sex!

That's fine if you're marrying someone of another RACE not the same sex!

Good for you determining the holding of Loving. However, the holding also enumerated marriage as a right in and of itself, and the dicta of the case applies equally well to same sex marriage as it does to interracial marriage.

The case is highly relevant to the curret same sex discussion.

OK the governor wants the people to say what they want, that will be law! that's the way its supposed to work. not having the few force something down every ones throat, the governor did the right thing now the people can decide, what happensis what happens.

Hmm ... in that case, why isn't EVERY piece of legislation voted on by the public. If a majority vote by both houses of the legislature is considered to be a "few forcing" an issue on everyone, then the same can be said of tax increases or the selection of a state flower.

ItIs .. it is very convenient of you to leave out another part of the ruling, which reads: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

If marriage is a civil right, the government must have an overriding interest in denying it. However, it can show no such interest because same-sex marriage doesn't deny anyone else their own right to marry.

DSB,

It just takes too much energy to hate and disenfranchise that many different groups of people all at one time, so they have to take turns.

Us girls are tough, we can take the heat for a bit in order to sneak the gays into the "Equal Protection Club", and than will fight our way back through the front door. Those transvaginal probes make excellent weapons when necessary.

Way to Maryland!

@ Sarah: I really have to remember not to be drinking something while reading comments on here! I am right there with ya Sista! I'd personally like to see how the boys would like to be "probed" without their consent in an absolutely invasive way!

Alaska,

All I have to say is...

Bend over and grab your ankles, boys.

Those transvaginal probes make excellent weapons when necessary.

Great point! Look at how they are leveling the opposition in Virginia.

Sarah

I might agree but these days I'm not so sure. I'm 61 and I remember fighting this abortion/contraception issue before. Getting a little bit tired of the right-wing nutbags who just keep bring it back up, over, and over, and over.......

To be honest, if the Repubs win I'm probably going to leave the fight to you younger generations. I'm thinking the Bahamas might be nice. But I'll be rooting for you, and coming back to vote of course!

Oh, and not to be too racy but we women have much better 'weapons' at our disposal. :)

DSB,

Sleep well, buddy. We've got this. :)

Ah, Sarah, nice to see such energy!

gods judgement cometh and that right soon, you butt slammin carpet munchen inmoral freaks

So far, I don't see any bills to make men responsible for theirs action. Remind me of how men in Muslim society think, it's always the fault of women.

Bend over and grab your ankles, boys.

That's not required of all people born male is it? Some of us are fighting for equality too. Personally, I want to see a fully-inclusive ENDA, but that's not what we're talking about here.

I'm cringing at the thought of an angry woman wielding an ice-cold speculum.

Thomas,

Of course it doesn't apply to MEN, you know, grown guys that don't get their rocks off by trampling our rights.

Unless you piss me off. Then all bets are off. :)

Sarah you would be a women I would think twice about dating. A) Somehow I feel like you would be the one on top B) You scare me with some of your comments C) I don't even know your age and older women don't appeal to me. No offence by the way.

@WhiteJudge

Obviously, man, you've not learned the joys of the bucking bronc. Seriously, you haven't lived until you've been with a woman that can hold her own. Personally, I'm more worried about timid women who don't threaten you until you don't return a frantic call about a nosebleed for an hour... because you were asleep.

True story.

Oh my! Looks like we've got some guys who prefer multiple partners! Okay, I kid, I know y'all mean "woman" (Singular, not plural, honey.).

And Sarah, I love reading your comments. I'd pay money to see an angry woman wielding an ice-cold speculum.

I don't know Sarah you miss spelled rump rocket! you spelled it with a "T". I suppose you invented the words Vaginal Palliate as well? you are kind of like the fox applying for a security job at the chicken ranch saying I'm not a fox.

Don't worry Judge for some reason I don't think you would interest her!

D Buck,

No, you're not a fox, apparently you're a wolf??? Also, why am I the only person who gets these creepy speculations about my sex life???

White Judge,

Good choice, I'm Sicilian, from Detroit, and I eat testicles for breakfast. Scared yet? My favorite part of your comment was the tone of it that implied, women are like waiting in line for you. Take some advice from this, "cougar", if you will, you have to ask us first. You don't just get to go, "Yeah, I'll date that one."

Everyone Else,

Lol, how did this become an opine on the dangers of dating me???

Also, why am I the only person who gets these creepy speculations about my sex life???

...how did this become an opine on the dangers of dating me???

It's because you're a woman, you're intelligent, you're opinionated, and you're vocal about it. And it seems that a lot of men are scared of women like that - "what do you mean, she has her own mind? No, she's supposed to agree with me - me Tarzan, her Jane." So, in their minds, it devolves into you being either a man-hating dy-- um, lesbian or some lonely man-hating spinster (possibly with dozens of cats).

Thomas,

By the way, I loved "Common Sense".

Lol, alas, I guess I should call the humane socieity.

That's partly why I chose this moniker as my screen-name for the sometimes seemingly futile efforts I partake here on the 'vine. It felt to me to have possibly more positive outcome than choosing something more Quixotic. His efforts led to the creation of this Great Nation, rather than the windmill-tilting battle cry of Patrick Henry.

Vic Van Meter

Well I never dealt with something like that from my wife but I see where you are coming from. And Thomas I like women with their own opinion. I'm just not the type of guy women like though. Some say I'm to kind but it's because I'm a little protective. And I think my life is eventful enough with katlynn running around.

How can you state that virtually all of us gays back in Nixon's time were Republican? Yes, the Log Cabin Republicans existed back then, but there weren't that many members then either because most gays were still too closeted to belong to any such organizations, or any organization for that matter. The Gay Rights Movement was just getting its start back then (only three years after the Stonewall Riots that led to the formation of the movement in 1969.) There were many of us who were either Democrats or independents, just as we still are. I was even a student coordinator for a Democratic candidate for Congress in 1968. I went independent after that race because I no longer trusted any politicians.

It was a situation of closeted gay kids telling queer jokes just to get by.

I think you got it backwards, Chris. It's not that 90 percent of gay people were Republicans, it was (just like it is now), that 90 percent of Republicans are gay. Closeted, oh yes, but gay gay gay nonetheless.

Sorry to burst your bubble but "the lawmakers" are not the people of Maryland...hopefully the people of Maryland will stand against what they know to be morally wrong and do the right thing.

Sorry to burst your bubble but "the lawmakers" are not the people of Maryland...hopefully the people of Maryland will stand against what they know to be morally wrong and do the right thing.

Yes, hopefully they will stand against something morally wrong (Denying citizens rights that are guaranteed under our Constitution. You know, that thing that actually means something in this country.) and do the right thing by voting for equality.

@fab five... guess what I'm one of the people born and raised in Maryland and I don't see not a damn thing wrong with gay marriages being approved. What I do see something wrong with is religious nutjobs like yourself acting like we aren't all equal peoples on this earth and therefore only certain peoples deserve certain rights... if gays shouldn't be allowed to marry then people like you shouldn't be allowed to breathe cause you're a disgrace to the rest of us humans with all your whining and crying.

The bible was written by man, man isn't infallible, the bible is man's understanding of religion and therefore is a bunch of BS. I'm a confirmed lutheran christian and yet I hate religion and consider myself neutral when it comes to the subject. I do believe in the fact that there is a higher power but I also believe if that higher power is so almighty that it created this planet and us along with animals and whatever else that said higher power could be anything or anyone... for example what's to say you're so called god wasn't gay? Nada after all Jesus was born into this world through a virgin not through actual lovemaking. If your so called god was gay then why isn't it stated in the bible you ask? Because as I said before the bible is man's translation of ancient texts and as with all things today, things we don't approve of or like are excluded.

Now mind you religious nutjobs or overly religious people I am not saying that your so called god is gay I'm just saying I look at things from a different viewpont or perspective than you. A lot of us puny humans have been brought up close-minded where as I'm rather openminded at age 33

wow i feel bad for all of you liberal, democratic, republican, christian, atheist, gay supporting, non gay supporting, gay, and non gay people. shut up. youll see the truth when were dead.

some believe its not progress at all. not claiming one side or the other, just answering the question.

I think you'd be surprised that so many of our youth feel that now, but nice point.

I think it is totally bogus to put gay marriage in the same category as the civil rights movement. Now if the blacks were marching and demonstrating so that they could be called "White" people, then it would be the same. They were in acknowledgement that they were black and didnt want to be called by a name other than what they actually were. Gays seek to call their relationships by a name that was made for man/woman relationships in the name of equal rights. They are completely different relationships. One creates natural families and stands out above all other types of relationships on the planet. Second to it is a natural parent/child relationship. The universe only allows homosexuals to have relationship status and nothing more. Why should we lie and call their relationships anything but what they are. Let all people gay or strait be able to qualify for "household" status if co-habitating for any length of time, as well as add to the back of drivers licenses the name of a primary household member for hospital visits or emergency contact etc.. That would be equal. Gay relationships should not be lumped into the same category as Natural Marriages until they naturally achieve the ability to procreate and bear young from their own flesh.

Get off the bandwagon people and think about this seriously for a while. This has nothing to do with equal rights. The gays aren't lobbying for anyone else's rights here. They want something that is selfish and their agendas are far from altruistic. At least household status would include life long friends where one cares for the other because of a disability. There are many situations like this where two strait people co-habitate and one is clearly a dependent of the other and they deserve tax credits etc.. instead of having to file as single. There are many many examples of living situations that merit the same rights that the gays are seeking, but they aren't sexual relationships and they aren't marriages.

Natural marriages are the most blessed relationships on the planet and when they are healthy are profoundly unique and special, creating long family trees and rich histories. They contribute to society in indispensable ways and deserve a highlighted and esteemed status among us. To deny this is to lie to yourself and everyone else.

Adding gay relationships to this just serves to undermine families and we do the gays, our children and our society a gigantic disservice by rushing this thing through without having an honest debate and looking at the options that actually uphold equality and truth.

mike said:

"Natural marriages are the most blessed relationships on the planet and when they are healthy are profoundly unique and special, creating long family trees and rich histories. They contribute to society in indispensable ways and deserve a highlighted and esteemed status among us. To deny this is to lie to yourself and everyone else."

You mean like Kim Kardashian's special and esteemed marriage? Or Brittney Spears nuptuals contribution to society? Or perhaps you meant Newt Gingrich's blessed relationship?(Of course which of the three is more blessed is said)

Get over yourself. You're a bigot trying to disguise your bigotry in verbosity.

The universe only allows homosexuals to have relationship status and nothing more.

The universe operates through natural laws. Tell me, which natural law prevents the state from approving same-sex marriage?

How are gay relationships different from heterosexual relationships? Heterosexuals marry for a host of reasons. It doesn't matter if they intend to have children or if they just want favorable tax treatment of health insurance. Society doesn't care and society doesn't ask. So, why should it care about the motives of same-sex couples?

There are many good and valid
reasons to vote against same sex marriage - natural order, public
morality, law and behavior theory, child development, preserving
American tradition, preventing the collapse of western civilization, parental
instincts, protecting the true meaning of marriage, among others.

Whoever goes around saying it’s
about "hate" and “homophobia” purposefully misrepresents the true
nature of the issue, and such a person is trapped in their own bias and
bigotry.

Those are not good or valid reasons. Good thing the majority doesn't agree with them

EMDF: if you notice I wrote HEALTHY natural marriages. This precludes a discussion about unhealthy ones and makes your post completely irrelevant as well as reactionary and mean spirited.

To all others who ask "Why" or "how" gay relationships are different, or why should gays not get married etcc... To all who ask these questions, I wish to remind you that if you knew the answer you wouldn't ask the question. I see the ignorance clearly in YOUR own words. You dont know why, that is why you pose the question.

I know for a fact that there will be a down side to gay marriage. There is a down side to almost everything. The question I have is; Are any of you willing to stop asking why and actually state the possible down sides and open a real discussion on the issue? There is quite a lot at stake here actually to just call everyone opposed a bigot and not really examine the issue...

One thing; What can be done to counter tax fraud or insurance fraud if same sex "marriages" take place between non-gays.

Should natural family members have less rights to their loved ones than their gay counterpart?

Should any type of same sex relationship where long term cohabitation exists be extended the same rights as another type of same sex relationship? If so, they should not be called marriage relationships because they aren't, nor would strait men want to be labeled as in a marriage with another man. Where is the actual equality?

There are sooo many issues that aren't even being looked at. Just the long term logistical ones are gigantic and may well, if honestly looked at be a deal breaker for lawmakers on Gay marriage. I don't think it actually will work like many think it will. I think it will be fraught with problems and inconsistencies, not to mention will end up actually depriving people of their civil rights by upholding one minority over other minorities.

I could go on, but I have said enough.

I dont hate gays btw...

Mike -

One creates natural families and stands out above all other types of relationships on the planet. Second to it is a natural parent/child relationship.

Natural marriages are the most blessed relationships on the planet and when they are healthy are profoundly unique and special, creating long family trees and rich histories. They contribute to society in indispensable ways and deserve a highlighted and esteemed status among us.

So by your definition, the Powell family's interrelationships stood out above all other types of relationships? It was idealistic? The contribution was indispensable? This worship of the "traditional" marriage/family is killing children and it has to stop.

mtwa. I dont know the Powells, but if they had some kind of unhealthy relationship, I was not talking about them. I was referring to healthy natural families. Your post is irrelevant and psychologist/psychiatrists all agree that healthy natural families with the biological father and mother are the most ideal for the development of children. I am NOT saying that all other situations are bad mind you (to the poster who is about to blast me for saying something that I am NOT saying). I am saying that they are IDEAL for children and they also are know to build healthy societies.

Isn't it time that we put more effort into nurturing the creation of healthy natural families, strengthening the importance of marriage for the RIGHT reasons, emphasizing the need for and enforcing personal responsibility within our communities?

No one can speak against these things, all you can say is; "Why not something else?" -I'll tell you why, since you dont know. We cannot improve on nature. It far surpasses any technology that we have and will always work better for everyone as a whole. Lets trust it for once!

mike::: Why the heck do bigots always have to bring up the fact that marriage means families-- in other words, procreation and brats out the yingyang. Marriage is the union of TWO HUMANS of the age of consent to become one for companionship and commitment. Maybe they don't produce any children. Is their marriage a fake, a sham and something worse. I'm sure to bigots it is, but that is one man's opinion-- and opinions are like a??holes. Everybody has one.

I think Mike makes a good point, and I find it interesting that you fools can throw around words like bigot and homophobe and not get any reprimand by the liberal moderators on MSNBsneer. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Anything else is perversion of what God intended. Same sex marriage is no better than incest or polygamy and I haven't heard an argument yet sufficient enough to convince me otherwise.

btw.. Why don't they put it up for a vote in MD since it's so obvious more people are in favor of gay marriage?

The reason that Marriage is associated with procreation is because part of what marriage is has to do with procreation. It isn't all of what marriage is though. Men and women are naturally physically, emotionally and spiritually created symbiotically for one another. If you join to outlets together, you have 2 outlets. If you join a plug to an outlet you now have a marriage and a working appliance. Same sex "marriages" are not marriages, they are redundancies.

A man/woman union is the only union that is blessed with the possibility of furthering the human race. It is a unique relationship holding blessings physical, emotional and spiritual like no other when it is healthy, and it is indispensable to our planet.

mike-2130882 - Guess what, have you ever heard of a surrogate mother's? I know several gay couples (legally married in states that actually are in the 21st century), that are raising children thanks to a surrogate mother. Gay marriage is not redundant. You do realize that people get married for more than one reason right? What happens if a woman or even a man cannot bear children? Does that make their marriage redundant?

Mike,

You can your opinion all you want, but we will have marriage rights universally one day, and so many couples already have children, and they're doing a fine job. As well as straight married couples. Enough said and you want be able to change that.

you ask me " what happens if" Hilton. You ask because you dont know. I do know and men/woman relationships are still blessed naturally above other relationships because of the symbiotic nature of men and women.

The demon running the principalities at work within the gay rights issue will not allow you to sit still and ponder the true, beautiful and set apart nature of the man woman relationship. That is why you do not know the answers to the questions you ask.

Your post is irrelevant and psychologist/psychiatrists all agree that healthy natural families with the biological father and mother are the most ideal for the development of children.

The APA disagrees. Let's see your source.

How children fare. Research shows that children raised by lesbian and gay parents develop in the same positive ways that children raised by heterosexual parents do, and that same-sex couples are just as capable of providing a supportive environment for children, said Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD, of the University of Virginia.

www .apa.org/monitor/2010/10/same-sex.aspx

Richard, WA (I see by your posts you've been chiming in on gay-marriage across the country, NJ, etc.)....your source is more than a little biased and was impeached on the stand. Turns out she let her sexual choice affect research she's presenting as unbiased....

"Dr. Patterson testified as to her own lesbian status and the Respondent maintained that her research was possibly tainted by her alleged use of friends as subjects for her research. This potential was given more credence than it should have been by virtue of her unwillingness to provide the Respondent as well as the Petitioner, with the documents ordered to be produced" (1997, JUNE AMER, Petitioner v Floyd P. Johnson, p. 11)."

...mugshot of her here...

Marylander not for GayMarriage - You are aware, are you not, that what you quoted was an opinion of someone involved in a court case? The gist of what I read was that she was subpoenaed in the case, or was otherwise serving as a witness, perhaps an expert witness hired by the Petitioner, and the Respondent in the case wanted to discredit her. Just because someone disagreed with her, and attempted to cast doubt on what she wrote (that's what lawyers do in court, after all) does not mean that it was proven not to be true. If it were proven, it would have been entered in the case law as a Finding of Fact, possibly accompanied by a Conclusion of Law and an Order. Note the use of the words "possibly tainted" and "alleged". Those are words used when people want to make an impression that something is true, without having to have any facts to support their supposition. Just because you can quote someone you agree with does not make it true. Sorry if that is inconvenient.

@EMDF,

I don't think there is a person here who is not a bigot or entitled to their own opinion. If you can't refute the other person's argument stop resorting to name calling. Weak!

@Barry,

The qualifier of a relationship cannot be the emotional bonds formed during a relationship. Emotional bonds are fleeting and can be formed with any other living beings(i.e pets, animals, children). A better qualifier is:

· relationship duration

· monogamy vs. promiscuity

· relationship commitment

· number of children being raised

· health risks

· rates of intimate partner violence -frc

What's so great about being gay?

What's so great about being homophobic and discriminatory?

One thing; What can be done to counter tax fraud or insurance fraud if same sex "marriages" take place between non-gays.

Why don't you ask what can be done to counter tax fraud if two people of opposite sex choose to marry?

I know for a fact that there will be a down side to gay marriage. There is a down side to almost everything. The question I have is; Are any of you willing to stop asking why and actually state the possible down sides and open a real discussion on the issue?

Mike ... if there are downsides, please tell us. Everytime I ask this question, I am met with silence. Even the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 trial were unable to list a single downside.

Mike - You said you don't know the Powells, in regards to the discussion of heterosexual marriage being good for kids. The Powells lived in Utah, a dad, a mom, and two little boys. One day the mom disappeared. The dad was named a 'person of interest' in the case, but never a suspect, and he was never arrested. The dad and the two boys moved to Washington state and lived with the dad's dad. The missing mom's parents got temporary custody of the boys when the dad's dad was arrested for child porn and voyeurism. When the dad did not get the kids back in a court hearing, he took advantage of the opportunity of an in-home, supervised visitation with the boys to whack them in the head with a hatchet, spread gasoline throughout the home and burn himself and the two little boys to death. I believe that is the example that was being offered in the discussion of whether heterosexual marriages are inherently good for kids. I'm not saying this proves or disproves anything, just that this is what was being referred to.

mike-2130882,

The demon running the principalities at work within the gay rights issue will not allow you to sit still and ponder the true, beautiful and set apart nature of the man woman relationship. That is why you do not know the answers to the questions you ask.

Demon? Seriously? Ok, let's skip that absurdity for the moment.

Please explain to me how your premise of "natural accord" and "socket and plug" premise will survive the coming era of humans having such control over their genetic that they can switch sexes if desired at any stage in their life cycle? Think 20 years out or less. Even married couples may mutually desire to change their original sex for no other reason than to spice things up. How will your rationales accommodate that?

I find your "natural order" rationales very antiquated and not at all universal...especially considering that sex itself is a relatively recent evolutionary invention.

If only the universe itself would come into the 21st century also and make gay people able to bear natural children. Then we would all be truly equal!

Obviously you've never met a woman born barren Mike, your argument holds water like a broken bottle. By the logic of "only a male/female couple can have kids!" Well, that doesn't always work out. Procreation is not the sole purpose of mating and few have the strength of heart and mind to choose who they love.

mike you ate a bowl of stupid this morning. Gay women are able to bear natural children as you so eloquently put it. You are a bigot just by saying "the gays". That is such an offensive term and I'm not even gay!

I suppose we should take away the civil rights of women who have gone through menopause, Mike...

Kat girl, man woman relationships at least have the possibility of it. If someone is barren, then their uterus is broken, not my meaning. There are exceptional circumstances occasionally, but nature creates man woman relationships as physically, emotionally and spiritually symbiotic in nature and makes them the ONLY relationships that can bear children (you know, further the human race). So the only things broken here are the hypothetical uterus you spoke of, and your argument.

mike::: Your mind is stuck on man/woman and sex isn't it. I guess that shows people where your brain is! Why can't a homosexual couple have a relationship that is emotionally and spiritually symbolic in nature? And physically doesn't always mean screwing-- like I guess you mean.

The only thing broken here is your thinking.

You ask why? That means that you clearly dont know. An argument based on ignorance is no argument

Nature makes men and women symbiotically perfect for one another. It does no such thing with women and women, or men and men. Think of two lesbians raising a male child. One says to the other; "We really need a positive male influence in this childs life." They are right to acknowledge that and this is one small proof of the symbiotic nature of a man/woman relationship. Women cannot be everything in the development of children, nor can men. We need both. Men and women represent the fulness of relationship and have everything needed for one another and for children.

Susie-2759697 - Great Post Susie and right on the money.

@ Mike

"Think of two lesbians raising a male child. One says to the other; 'We really need a positive male influence in this childs life.'"

You know who else might think they need a positive male influence in their child's life--single mothers whose husbands/baby daddys/one-night stands, what-have-you, have absented themselves from the child's life.

As so many children today are raised in one-parent households (often the mother), because of failed heterosexual relationships, why not have two moms? Seriously, why not? Wouldn't two loving and participatory parents (regardless of gender) be better for a child than a single parent who, probably, has to spend much of his/her time working and thereby ignoring the child?

"The Gay" isn't catching, but ignorance is.

Mike, I love how you use "You ask why? That means that you clearly dont know. An argument based on ignorance is no argument."

You're making an ignorant assumption based on the fact that you THINK that they don't know the answer, hence why they're asking. What you're doing is dodging the question, and only digging your hole deeper, while showing your ignorance at the same time. They ask "Why?" because they wish to see your response, your ignorance however makes you assume that they don't know the answer.

An argument based on ignorance is no argument.

nature makes men and women symbiotically perfect for one another.

I'm a Wiccan priestess, and you'd like to discuss nature and how people are created? Okay, that sounds fun. Our creator loves wondrous variety we see this in the flowers, the trees, the rocks, virtually everything around us.

In the world of those who cannot accept this, they see the world as a bowl full of blue m&m's(for example) then when they spot a red m&m in the bowl they feel the need to point out it is different and tell others how horrible that is. The proverbial red m&m did not choose to be red, it was simply made that way it is not wrong for being what it is, it simply is.

In the same way bigotry and hatred work, when someone sees something they do not understand or someone who believes differently then they do out of fear or anger or jealousy, what have you they feel the need to tell them how wrong they are. This is foolishness and this is self evident because to those you see as different, from their perspective YOU are different yet they do not tell you the things you do are wrong or hate you for it.

I wonder from this, who need to do more thinking and growing. The fewer who live with the oppression, fear and hatred but love others or those who hold hate in their hearts for others. I wonder in that day when we come to be before that eternal spirit that creates and binds all living things who will feel worse those that found and kept love in their hearts for their fellow being, or those who spread hate.

Mike - You can quit acting like anyone who asks you a question is ignorant. You really are not successful in your attempts to make them look stupid because they question something you wrote. I've read their posts, and yours, and it appears to me that you are deflecting attention from things you don't want people to think about because you really don't have answers for their questions. When you write that when someone asks a question it is because they don't know the answer, you just appear foolish. Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question? But then again, here I am ending a sentence in a question mark, so I suppose you will try to make me out to be stupid, ignorant, or whatever suits your purpose. So be it. I think most people can see through it.

Mike - Given your argument that only marriages between one man and one woman should be allowed because only they can produce babies, it would follow then that you would oppose marriages between couples that don't want children, or couples in which the man has erectile dysfunction, or has had a vasectomy or has a low sperm count, or couples in which the woman is perimenopausal, postmenopausal, has had a hysterectomy or tubal ligation, or has a history of miscarriages without a live birth, or for any other reason is barren. I mean, it's only logical, from your premise that only couples that are going to reproduce should be allowed to marry.

no one wants to marry you

That's the sad thing. People named "Bernie" usually do want to marry their family members :(

Thommy and Ed,

See, more dumb left-wing retorts when an answer eludes them.

Please answer...Where are my "civil rights".

Simple enough to answer if you're as smart as a liberal.

bernie-1722829,

You are surely welcome to start your own movement for equal protection under the law and gain the rights that you seek if you want to marry your immediate family members or have multiple wives.

Nobody is stopping you. Have at it.

Ummm, it's called incest and I think it is almost always illegal, which is a crock because it should be illegal everywhere just for the ick factor alone!

@bernie - Like any marriage legislation, incest laws vary from state to state. If you really want to marry your sister, you can... but to marry your brother, you'll need a state that *also* allows same-sex marriage. Enjoy!

Bernie, I assume you are being facetious about your "wants". You made an excellent point, though. People who have wants have to sometimes be moderated by the community where they live. Same as six year old drivers, the individual has to weigh in against what is best for whole group. Homosexual marriage is not the issue. Kim Kardashian aside, it is the problem of fidelity and morality. I don't want these people teaching my kids it is okay to do what they do in their bedroom. Right now they can legally do this in schools and adopt other people's kids. This has to stop. They can live the lives they want in their own house and find some way to collect ea other's benefits but no way with the kids. Yes, it does mean leaving a few souls in an orphanage rather than pervert them. Love me now for pointing this out to you, tell me later how much:)

Bernie,

If you can show lack of genetic or social harm from incest unions you stand a good chance of eventually succeeding. Can you?

Bernie: go take a shower and rinse all those santorum off -- you are stinking of lil' ricky!!

Ed-334433, Didn't people just like you used to make fun of the gays when they felt that is was to their advantge and due to differences in belief? I think so, by prancing around in exaggerated stature with a lisp and little finger up in the air. Harvey Korman used to do it best for Mel Brooks' movies. You might want to practice if the demand comes back for this kind of sarcastic mockery of another person's characteristics for cash. Try character assasination also, if the fomer doesn't get you off. Otherwise, making fun of Bernie's name due to differences in belief in here is fine and you don't technically have to apologize in this forum the way you normally should as long as you are politically correct:)

Mom
Wow, do you REALLY think that a 'gay' person can teach a child to be gay? I don't even know where to start so I won't. But I will tell you you are so wrong. I feel sorry for your kids though. By teaching them to be bigots you aren't doing them any favors. I know you won't believe me but the next generation (your kids generation) won't see same-sex marriage as anything special. I saw the same thing in the civil rights movement. Your kids won't thank you for it.

And no, I would never love a bigot.

Dont even bother responding to Bernie. It's obvious he thinks a gay male is going to treat him, the way he treats women.

Yeah. This definitely opens the door to all of these questions. Mark my words, polygamy will be in the courts soon.

Also, this crap is coming dangerously close to making natural parent/child status (family status) irrelevant and that is going to open up a crap storm of epic proportions. The gay people or lawmakers haven't thought this one through by any means. -Tax cheats galore now people...Hurray for all liars!

Btw, strait men who engage in homosexual sex for money and/or other reasons report that their hormones change and they develop an uncontrollable lisp as well as other feminine traits. Interesting.

Mike
Sources?

Yeah. This definitely opens the door to all of these questions. Mark my words, polygamy will be in the courts soon.

Why? Same-sex marriage is being fought to obtain equality -- the right to marry the one consenting adult to whom they are sexually and emotionally attracted, just as heterosexuals may do. No one is permitted legal polygamy, so there's no discrimination. If you want to end the push for same-sex marriage, there is a simple answer: eliminate heterosexual marriage. It isn't as radical as it sounds. The state could stop issue marriage licenses and only issue civil union licenses. If a couple, straight or gay, wants to be married, they can go to any church that will perform the ceremony.

The anti-gay crowd claims that marriage is a religous institution, but if that's true, why is it regulated by the state? They can't have it both ways!

@ Momstheword I'll save all my practicing to do satires of bigots and ignorant people like you mom. Do you really think all the same sex people that are allowed to adopt children are doing it to "pervert" the kids. Wow, if that's how think I feel very sorry for the ones you are raising. Ignorance breeds ignorance. Please go crawl back under your rock and for the sake of the world, no more breeding.

dsb, No I don't fear that children can be taught to be gay, I am afraid they will be used for perverse reasons in group homes, foster homes run for profit which is now happening. Children in these homes have a much less chance of forming lasting relationships, 80% chance of winding up in prison, drop out of high school, etc. What is connection here with gay marriage? It is just that marriage is Biblical contract between a man an a woman, okay? The woman produces the child, children. To be married is one thing for a gay couple but to have to adopt for more of society's acceptance is another thing. Please go back and read my post as you obviously do your name-calling before you read things. I said it is okay for them to do what they want in their bedrooms/with their lives. You don't seem to reason well here. What about what I want to do with my life/teach my children? I am sure you won't answer that but thought I would put it for others to see. If I then don't want my kids or my neighbors' kids taken for some flimsy excuse and sold on the child prot services auction block for profit, then what is it to you? This is the filithy underside of all you are preaching, lady and you better do your own research before calling me names. I can think of a few for you like Uneducated Bimbo With A Cause. Please look up cps fraud and adoption rackets, if you know how to use the Internet beyond Victoria's Secret. White bond, blue eyed babies go for as high as $150,000 on the illegal adoption underground market. Youtube Ted Gunderson former FBI agent and his testimony about child auctions for this purpose. People like you who shoot off their mouths before their brains(?) engage only drive up the demand by letting more childless couples into the arena. You don't have a clue what love is, just a glamorous cause for now then run. You have no idea the damage you are doing and don't care. And I would not let my kids around you.

Ed-334433 ~ What did my kids do to you? They just wrote in the news that Hitler had a French "love child". Bummer for that kid if they meet you, huh? You have the right idea that you should fight for right, just protecting wrong people. Before you attain ramming speed make your aim a little better, honey. I never said gays aren't entitled to be who they are, just don't want them to adopt kids, okay?

Okay, here comes "The List" again, because Moms and Bernie here, apparently like straw man arguments. Just when I was getting ready to retire it too...

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.

The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.

The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that they're related, and still want to marry, and I'll say go for it.

The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves.

The it's unnatural argument: So are a lot of things you don't argue against. Like babies with health issues surviving. That's not supposed to happen according to "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" either. Nor is marriage about procreation. Look at all the couples who don't want/have kids, and all the single people who do.

Now, can we please knock this crap off? I'm so sick of having to post this.

I don't have any problem saying it: Bernie, as long as these people are legally able to consent, I think you should have that right. It doesn't affect my life in any possible way, and it might make other peoples' lives just a little happier in these trying times.

momstheword::: if you are so worried about teachers teaching yhour kids what goes on in other peoples' bedroom then teach the brats yourself-- that way you will teach them hate and bigotry. And you just better not get into my bedroom-- no telling what you might learn there.

Sarah, there is enough support for polygamy. The mormans are rich and will certainly be in court next since tax law is already having to be re written for gay marriage. Funny, all the arguments against polygamy YOU used are the very arguments you fight against concerning gay marriage. Incidentally, gay marriage holds nothing redeeming over polygamy, in fact their are many who would argue that polygamy has natural benefits above gay marriage. I would not argue that either is wholesome.

You also said that Marriage existed before organized religion. You are mistaken in some ways here. Marriage has always been a spiritual rite. Before it was a spiritual rite, it was a natural occurrence between man and women. We humans, like penguins have sort of an imprinting mechanism at work within us. We are creatures that mate for life. Not always, but often. Marriage began when an extraordinary bond occurred between a man and woman and they mated for life, creating a family in the process. These marriages were ALWAYS between man and woman and then the spiritual rite was developed later to honor what was taking place naturally. It was honoring the creation of families. Even for the barren, the man woman relationship is the only kind of relationship where the natural imprinting so to speak takes place. It is still a marriage even without children. -So, marriage was FIRST a natural occurrence between men and women, then was made into a religious/spiritual rite. There is zero precedent anywhere for gay marriage, only gay relationships.

Our society uses the Roman Catholic rite (vows) in the civil ceremony. Only the spiritual/religious sections of our societies have a right to the name marriage for they coined the term and created the rite.

All of your arguments sound somewhat thought out, but they are in fact rushed and filled with flaws. You strain the gnat and swallow the camel. I think it is stuck in your throat. You are blinded by your overwhelming desire to fit in and be politically correct. You would argue against solar power if it was hip to do so.

Oh and momstheword::: So marriage is for producing brats? Oh God, then my husband and I were not married (according to your way of thinking) for 15 years. Bet the chaplain who married us would be shocked to learn that.

And talk about child abuse that leads me to the news media. There are more stories about heterosexuals and child abuse. A homosexual couple who adopt can choose-- a heterosexual couple who have a brat have to take what they are given, and sometimes they don't like what they got.

There are too many bigots that just love to preach about marriage between a man and a woman is the only way to go. Marriage is for commitment and companionship-- not just for screwing and having brats.

A civil marriage does not invoke or claim any religion, but is often done by a church official right in the court house and typically uses the same vows as laid out by the Roman Catholic church. -for richer and poorer etc...

Dang susie, how hate filled and bigoted you sound....btw, you took my words all out of context.

Mike,

I didn't know you know me so well. All that from a post huh?

I see a lot of opinions in your post about the benefits of gay marriage compared to the benefits of polygamy. I see some assertions about numbers and spiritual rites.

What I don't see however, is a reason that passes strict scrutiny, which is what you need.

All that religious crap, you know about your so called "extraordinary bond between men and women" for "always" and yada, yada, yada... Yeah, that doesn't count, because we're all free of your religion.

So until you have the golden ticket, that being a reason that passes strict scrutiny, you got nothing. And sorry, I'm a big proponent of solar power, regardless.

Oh, and PS, that "natural occurence" was between a man, and a woman's male guardian. We didn't really get a choice, until oh a couple hundred years ago.

Your scrutiny strains out egg whites from egg whites. You are so dogmatic that you will not believe anything that anyone says against gay marriage, or pro natural marriage. It is a known fact that at times men and women have a profound spiritual bonding that takes place often in the matter of seconds and the bond continues for life. You may say "Prove it to me!" I dont need to do that. Go to any graveyard and see how so often when one person dies, their spouse follows in a short matter of time. As if they couldn't live without one another. Listen to the testimonies of people who have had this bonding. They will tell you that they knew the moment that they saw the person that the other was "the one." The testimonies and proofs of it are everywhere and you also see the life long bonding in animals also. Clearly this is a natural occurrence. It is pure denial to dismiss the fact that these things are real.

You are a backward, ignorant woman. Grow up

^ your "known facts" are nothing more than anecdotal evidence. try again.

Go Maryland! Join modern times!

Mike, I'm going to take what you just said and make one minor change (in brackets).

"It is a known fact that at times [two people] have a profound spiritual bonding that takes place often in the matter of seconds and the bond continues for life. You may say "Prove it to me!" I dont need to do that. Go to any graveyard and see how so often when one person dies, their spouse follows in a short matter of time. As if they couldn't live without one another. Listen to the testimonies of people who have had this bonding. They will tell you that they knew the moment that they saw the person that the other was "the one." The testimonies and proofs of it are everywhere and you also see the life long bonding in animals also. Clearly this is a natural occurrence. It is pure denial to dismiss the fact that these things are real."

Apart from the minor change I had to make at the beginning, I actually agree with you. But as you said "men and women" I shall presume that you believe that this bond can only happen between heterosexual couples. That's where you're wrong. That bond is *love*, and love is not something that only straights can experience.
There have been gay couples shown over and over again in the news who have been together for 40, 50 years. I know gay couples (some legally married, some not) who you can tell they were truly meant for each other.

So to try and base your argument for straight-only marriage on this "bond" is preposterous.

@Sarah,

Personally, I think every statement made in defense of a homosexual lifestyle should be proceeded by the words: In theory. Gay activist love to create unrealistic senerios making it seem as though homosexuality. The truth of the matter is that Murphy's law is dominent with humans. In the absence of law and order anything that can go wrong does. I'm appauled by the amount of people trying to brush any faultings with homosexuality under the rug. The nonchelance with which a majority of homosexual supporters brush dirt under the rug is simply troubling.

1. While you can cite that spefics of a group defer, one group is the same as another. In the presence or absence of support, any justification for one deviant lifestyle, that can be used by one group can be used by another. The issue is deviant sexual behavior. Pedophilia, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality are all abnormal sexual behaviors. They are so, because apart from heterosexual sex, sex has no reason to be in existance. The truth is that if the laws were changed, the tax payers would be the one paying in the end.

2. Children and animals can give actual consent. Legal consent and actual consent are two entirely different things. Underage children can be married with their parent's permission. In that sense, they can contract. A teenage girl or boy can actually consent to sex, but legally, any sexual activity with minors can be viewed as statutory rape. Oh, and bestiality is legal in 10 states in the United States. Homosexuality was listed as a mental illness until bullying from gay activist groups caused it to be removed.

3. For someone who talks about poisoning the well, you should know about an all-inclusive statement. Not every case of incest is based on power, control, or abuse. I guess they would be what you call healthy.

4. But given the fact that some underage people can still marry, not every marriage is between two legal adults. The law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, even if the couple is infertile, as long as they are of opposite genders they still fit the definition.

5. Here we go loving vs Virginia...

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, was "directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment." In short, "under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."⁴⁴

Which is fine if you're marrying a person of a different RACE, not of the same gender! Special cases aren't grated by SCOTUS based on sexual orientation....Ergo, gays ain't special cases. P.S Gays haven't proven anything either. Where's the 'gay' gene again?

6.

If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No

Yes, because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

7. It pains me to see any argument, which can be generalized at the whole human race, taken from an abstraction and pointed at a perticular group: perticuallarly if that group is for an immoral purpose.No. If you don't like something doesn't work. I think the merit of whether a behavior should be overlooked should only be based on that behavior's overall effect. (I guess by that logic we could tell a homosexual person, 'if you don't like the way heterosexual people respond then stop being gay'.)

If you don't like a bank being robbed, don't bank. If you don't like your home being broken into, sleep on the street. Robbery is inherently wrong. It will never be right for one person to steal from another. Homosexuality is inherently wrong. It will never be right for two people of the same gender to have sex with each other. Sex is designed to transfer the genitic material of the father to the mother. Homosexuality is not natural and has never been proven to be natural.

because apart from heterosexual sex, sex has no reason to be in existance. (sp)

This is false, ask any reputable psychologist. Intimacy has many reasons for existence beyond reproduction.

ItIsWhat!t!s,

Personally, I think every statement made in defense of a homosexual lifestyle should be proceeded by the words: In theory.

But your assertions shouldn't? Your entire post was filled with theoretical assertions without founding substance. Saying does not make things so...yet your entire post is of that nature.

Culheath,

Thank you! I love how they think if you make them longer, that somehow makes their assertions more valid.

Mike,

Do you always fall back on personal insults when you realize you have no argument?

ItisWhatitis,

See the post above this.

For everyone here who has been misquoting the bible and taking verses out of context, let me summarize it for you:

1. God is holy and perfect. Sin cannot stand in His presence.

2. People are sinners. All people. Me. You. Straight people. Gay People.

3. In our sin, we reject God and ultimately earn for ourselves eternity seperated from His love and under his Holy and just wrath.

4. God, in His mercy, made a way for sinners to be made righteous again. He sent His only son to die and suffer His wrath in thier place. His name is Jesus Christ.

5. If we acknowledge our sin and entrust ourselves to Jesus, we will be reconciled to God.

6. If we become children of God, He gives us His Spirit to lead us in this life, which will change our selfish hearts, and lead us into a life of love.

That is the most basic way I can summarize God's Word. Of course, there are millions of other glorious treasures in it, but you have to read it yourself and meditate on it to find them.

Hope this helps.

QED

Daddy,

But which version of the Bible are you talking about?

I get really sick of people coming on here and preaching THEIR Bible, as if it is THE truth. No, it's YOUR truth maybe, but it's totally inconsequential in a discussion about equal protection and it's "truthiness" is in the hands of the reader.

God, that's just so presumptuous.

Our society uses the Roman Catholic rite (vows) in the civil ceremony. Only the spiritual/religious sections of our societies have a right to the name marriage for they coined the term and created the rite.

Unless you can show me the copyright, no one was the unique right to the word "marriage". This is a secular world. Get over your sky-daddy fixation.

Sarah-3043284~ Read your "arguments", where are your sources? Let me guess, you are the source, right? Why don't your gays just live together/create their own ceremony, allow for social security to be accrued for their "spouses" some other way and be happy? Call themselves married and get married in a church. Why do they "need" other people's children so badly? I said all along they can do as they please just don't allow them to adopt. And btw, if they do adopt and they will, inevitably, please tell your precious gays to take the boy with drug problems who is 15 and has a police record, or the girl with promiscuity problems. Let's see your gay heros actually do some work helping people, not taking all the time, okay?

Mom,

Civics 101. A little something about how our laws work. The person defending greater liberty, the person protecting civil rights, well we don't have to have sources or evidence. They don't have to make a case FOR BEING ALLOWED RIGHTS. They already have them.

YOU have to make a case and find evidence for why you want to LIMIT rights. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

So that post above, that isn't an argument for why they should have rights. It's an answer to YOUR arguments that they shouldn't.

You wanna say they can't adopt? You have to come up with credible, legal evidence, and a substantive legal argument, that passes strict scrutiny.

Get it yet?

Momsthe: Not that its any of your damn business, but I'll tell you a personal story involving gay adoption. 12 years ago, I nearly adopted a 12 year old boy. I had known his parents since before he was born and known him since the day he was born. I'm not qualified to diagnose, but his father had been mentally ill his whole life. Shortly after the boy was born, his mother was diagnosed with cancer. The mother finally died when he was 10. They were living in a partially collapsed home with no electricity as the father was simply incapable of holding a job. When the mother died, the father went on a drugs and alcohol binge, I presume in a futile attempt to dull his grief. I talked to him about my adopting the boy and basically he offered to "sell" me his parental rights and move out of the state for $25,000. I chickened out (quite cowardly) because of two factors: I thought that there would be a scandal that might hit the newpapers in the very conservative rural south where I live if an openly gay single male adopted a barely pubescent boy (and that this scandal would hurt the boy) and I feared the father would blow through the money and return wanting more and threatening to hurt me and/or the boy. The father subsequently drank himself to death. The boy moved in with his paternal grandmother (unemployed, no high school degree, on food stamps). He joined a gang, dropped out of school, served a brief jail term, and got two different girls pregnant before he was 18. Mind you, this was a boy who at 12 had been making perfect grades in school and was absolutely the most polite kid that age I've ever seen. He was shot and killed in gang violence just before his nineteenth birthday. I've been helping out (in a very small, modest way) the two girls with whom he had children since his death. So, momsthe, I'd like to know what you think. Would that boy have been better off with me--an openly gay male college professor--than with his mentally ill alcoholic drug-abusing father and then with his granny who simply watched TV all day and didn't lift a finger to take care of or keep track of him? What's your opinion, moms?

Mike - I think I missed something somewhere. What's the connection between allowing gay marriage and an increase in tax cheats? Are you trying to say that homosexual couples are inclined to cheat on taxes, but heterosexual couples are not, and therefore the rate of tax cheating will go up if gays are allowed to marry? If so, do you have some sort of evidence that would tend to support that assertion?

mom - Are you seriously saying that children are better off growing up in an orphanage with no parents than to be adopted by a loving, same-sex couple? What are the odds that those children are going to be able to form close, loving relationships with anyone once they are adults? I would think that children who grow up seeing a close, loving relationship at home every day will have a much stronger foundation on which to build their own relationships as adults. And what's the bit about CPS swiping kids from heterosexual homes and selling them to homosexual homes? Don't you think that's just a little bit far-fetched?

mike-2130882 - I agree with you. Love at first sight is a beautiful thing, and can indeed lead to a lifelong loving, committed relationship. Do you have any basis for a claim that love at first sight only happens to heterosexual couples? Or is that just your own supposition? Can you offer any evidence, other than your own personal opinion, that love at first sight does not occur in homosexual couples? Until you can come up with something more convincing than, "Homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry because I don't want them to," you might have to be content with allowing them to have the same basic human rights as anyone else.

mom - A couple of questions: What, exactly, were you referring to when you describe gays as "taking all the time"? What are they taking that they are not entitled to, but the rest of us are? And why would you limit the options of a gay person who wishes to adopt, but not a straight person? Why would a gay couple have to adopt a 15 year old drug addict with a criminal record or a promiscuous girl, while a straight couple would be allowed to adopt a newborn? Perhaps you feel that a gay couple, having had lots of practice living in a society which does not accept them, and which treats them badly (such as yourself, for instance), they would be better equipped to help troubled kids, whereas mainstream, heterosexual couples would not be similarly prepared. I can't think of any other good reason you would feel this way. Unless, of course, you are promoting bigotry, discrimination, prejudice...

Do some research, Civil rights are never put up for a majority vote.

And all marriages should be termed "civil union" because legally that is exactly what they are...a legal contract approved by the state. All 1400+ laws should be amended to remove any reference to "marriage" and change it to "civil union" with NO stipulation about it being available only to one man-one woman. And it is NOT an issue that should be put to the voters in any state, since it is a constitutional civil right under the equal rights protection of that constitution.

Anti-trust
So you propose changing all the laws, forms, etc. to do away with the word 'marriage'? Why? The word and the practice existed long before the Church started performing the ceremonies. It existed and still exists in other non-Christian cultures and in every country in the world.

Why should we change all of that just to keep from hurting some of the Christians feelings? They don't own the word or the practice.

D McMillen, in Maryland it's not a matter of "some elected official" making the call. Majorities in both chambers of the legislature have passed this, and the governor agrees with them. These are the people that the residents of Maryland elected to write the laws of the state, which is what they are doing.

As for the suggestion that it should be put to a public vote, please keep in mind that we don't put constitutional rights up for a public vote. Many of us in this country believe that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment requires that gay Americans have the same right to a civil marriage as straight Americans. If we can put that up for a public vote, then we should be able to put other constitutional rights up for a vote, too. I suspect that a lot of people who argue for a popular vote on gay marriage would argue against a popular vote on gun rights. Constitutional issues and civil rights are meant to be handled by our legislatures and courts. That's how our founding fathers designed our government.

D McMillen - The majority of the population did not support woman's rights and giving them the right to vote. The majority of the population did NOT support desegregation and black rights in this country. In this case, its no different. Civil Rights are to be federally protected. Lastly, over 52% of the US population supports gay marriage.

@well hell, everybody. I simply said it would be interesting, because honestly, the election is not. I am very well aware that everyones version of what constitutes their "civil rights" is different. And I said it would be interesting because they are saying public opinion in that state is 50/50. Of course, the same argument could not be said for the rights of blacks at that period of time. And @it's about time, where did you get the "over 52% of the US population supports gay marriage"? I would have to take an unprejudiced look at where you derived that statistic from. For the record, this issue is really a non-issue to me. I don't personally approve of homosexuality, but whether I do or not, it exists, and if someone is living in the same residence or married to that person really doesn't affect my life at all. My neighbor who just passed was a lesbian, and we got along just fine.

D McMillen: This is 4 credible polls that show the majority of American population now supports gay marriage. Additionally, 8 states and the DC of columbia now supporting gay marriage, and the latest federal appellate court overturning proposition 8 in California, it's very clear, that the majority supports it.

www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521

fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html

Thank you for the rest of your post. I have no issue with anyone who does not approve of homosexuality, that's their choice. It's when their choice interferes with basic civil rights for all, is where I have to draw the line.

D McMillen - Civil rights are not a matter for a public vote. That's why we don't vote on slavery, whether minorities are allowed to vote, etc. Those are civil rights, and are subject to the Constitution. If it was all about states' rights and voting, Southern states would still have slavery. Women would not be allowed to vote at all. The rights of minorities are not subject to the whims of the majority.

No it is not, it all started under Bush (MA was five years ago.)

Nope, Bush fight it and prevented, Obama opposed in his profile and is helping the gays marriage in his term, as i see it now in every state just to get the votes in 2012 , double faces

Sodom and Gomorrah big example, marriage is just between man and a woman. family start between man and woman, two women can not get babies and two men can not get babies.

Ever hear of surrogate mothers or adoption? Nice try, but two women and two men can get babies. Welcome to 2012.

The president has nothing to do with gay rights. The Fed does not recognize gay marriage, gay marriage is determined by the state. Obama nor Bush had anything to do with gay marriage rights peeps. And neither does religion for that matter... moving on suckas

Go back to the dark ages, bigot.

According to who Shariannie? You? or your book of fables? Or your invisible guy in the sky? Sorry, but none of them make our laws.

Or, back under the rock that you crawled out of.

David Burger-3454540,

TRUTH: The bible was written by men. There is not a single shred of evidence that a god wrote one single letter of it.

It's what I use for toilet paper.

Hahahahaha! That's stupid. Your faith is stupid.

God must have been pretty wasted when he wrote it then, because it doesn't make sense and also is full of flat out baloney.

But David, God talked to me last night and told me he is totally cool with same sex marriage and he wants you to chill a bit. Or was this another God?

David Burger-3454540 - You are 100% entitled to your religious beliefs. However, your religious beliefs end when it interferes with secular law and equal rights.

David Burger, you don't know the history of the bible very well, do you?! Even if we just forget about the personal or political motivations behind the many versions, we can't deny that much is lost in translation from the original texts.

It is extremely difficult to communicate the same word from language to language. Just yesterday, my coworkers had difficulty translating an English word to Spanish; They told me no such word existed in Spanish. They had to use a sentence to get the message across.

Don't get me wrong. I am a Christian and I love the Lord. I read the bible and try to apply its wisdom in my life. However, I am not ignorant of the world's history. Religious scholars have combined the original manuscripts to standardize the bible. It was then translated into Greek and now into 2000 languages. Kings and political leaders have all pushed their agendas on the masses for control, power, prestige, and whatever else they wanted (and still want).

Only God can verify what were His true words. Let's just say I have more faith in what God says to my head and heart than what I read.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.stm

http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm

Have any peer-reviewed and empirical evidence for that, David?

David - if you ever took the time to actually read the thing, you would find a God of compassion and acceptance. Exactly the opposite stand that those opposing same sex marriage take.

David::: The bible is a book written by man, and there weren't any tape recorders (or batteries for that matter) to record what was said word for word. If you think that a story that is passed down from generation to generation and comes out identical to what was said to begin with, you sure have a vivid imagination. Just keep believing that tale.

The only truth about the bible as it is known today is it was written by men and the gospels were chosen by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine in order to unify the hundreds of Christian sects for political power. Hundreds of gospels were banned and destroyed. So to claim the modern bible is the "literal truth" is ridiculous and to claim thE "truth does not change" is hilarious. The truth used to be that the Earth was flat. The truth used to be that the Earth was the center of the universe. Knowledge will set you free, not religion. Religion has only been used to control and persecute people. Christians were killed because they would refuse to pray to pagan gods. Native Americans were murdered by Christians for refusing to accept Christ. Its all the same. Religion is a tool of wicked men to impose their will. It is precisely what is going on right now, while we fight about who should be able to marry who, the rich people in power laugh their asses off as they continue to murder, rape and pillage all the way to the bank. Who cares if men want to marry men, or women want to marry women. What does it matter? Good for MD. The only good thing is that the majority of the bigoted people are old and will hopefully die soon. Then we can worry about real problems and not what grown adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. If you are a real conservative who believes in personal freedoms and eliminatING government intrusions, then stop trying to intrude into peoples' sex lives. Homosexuality isn't weird, straight conservatives' obsession with it is!!!

What does it matter you ask. You ask because you dont know. An argument based on ignorance is not an argument. It is irrelevant completely. Thanx for saying nothing in so many words.

• Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
• Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
• 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, ¹⁰nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
• Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, ²⁷and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. ²⁸And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Round about nonsensical babble. that’s all you have. Thanks for saying absolutely nothing with so few words. Sad

OneinChrist: Feel better quoting the bible? Man wrote those words, you know. Just like man interprets them as he or she pleases, and kills in the name of God--even justifying it. Try being Christ-like. I'll bet it's hard. Your god isn't a hater. But it is evident you sure are. Am I judging you? Yep. Sure am. But at least I can admit it, and don't have to hide behind the bible to tell you what I think about you. I am married to a man I adore. But you know what? I don't care if a gay person wants to marry. Love is love. What they choose to do has no impact on my life. Why are you so obsessed?

Oneinchrist, how about these?

Leviticus 11:10, But of the various creatures that crawl or swim in the water, whether in the sea or in the rivers, all those that lack either fins or scales are loathsome for you and you shall treat them as loathsome. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall loathe.

That means don't eat shrimp, clams, lobster, scallops...

Leviticus 11:26, All hoofed animals that are not cloven-footed or do not chew the cud are unclean for you.

That means pigs - no ham, bacon, sausage...

Leviticus 19:19, do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread.

Mules - bad, crop rotation - bad, permanent-press fabrics - bad

Leviticus 19:27, Do not clip your hair at the temples nor trim the edges of your beard; Do not lacerate your bodies for the dead, and do not tattoo yourselves.

Haircut and clean-shave - Verboten, tattoos - an abomination

Mike - Not everyone who holds an opinion different from yours is ignorant. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, and can occur on any side of an argument. And stating that someone does not know the answer to a question because they asked it is ludicrous. They are looking for your response to the question. When you don't give one, other than to call them "ignorant", you leave the impression that you are the one who is ignorant, since you have no answer to the question other than name-calling. I would venture to guess that a little more civility, and a little less superciliousness, would go a long way toward convincing others of your point of view, if that is actually what you are after. I have my doubts that changing the minds of others is actually your true objective, given the way you treat others.

Barry-1539263 - I think you and I probably agree that this nation's laws are not, and should not be based on the Bible, or any other religion for that matter, but I think that it might help elicit a more respectful and civil discussion of the issues if we all respected others' beliefs, and did not make inflammatory comments regarding the Bible, or any other religious holy book for that matter. We all have the right to believe or not as we see fit, but we should show each other the courtesy that we would like to have shown to us.

LOL...and now a word from the LORD..more nonsense

and now let all the prisoners get married. and next month let all the sex offenders adopt kids.

why? how does that relate at all?

We already allow prisoners to get married. A person on death row can be married. A person serving a life sentence can get married. Sorry, shado, but this is a no go if you are arguing against same sex marriage.

marriage is a state of union that can reproduce naturally in a family not some kind of TOY that makes one person different from the NORM....if you trust or rely on the education of a government official then except the fact that UNITED STATES IS BROKE but the debt is just a TOY!

Your comment makes no sense. But then again, if you are blinded by religious dogma, I guess you can write anything and really believe your thought process holds water, huh?

my only wish is that we could give all the gay couples who want to be married property in California. Not allow them to adopt children and just wait it out. could you imagine tthe real estate market in 20 to 30 years?? it woud be like the rush on oklahoma land back towards the turn of the century. what a deal...Im all for that!!

my only wish is that we could give all the gay couples who want to be married property in California. Not allow them to adopt children and just wait it out. could you imagine tthe real estate market in 20 to 30 years

So, every time a hetero- couple breeds another gay child, do we ship them off to Cali? Sounds to me like that State will thrive. And since the proverbial "we" seems to be using stereotypes, let's continue the thought. The houses will be in magnificent shape, fixed up by all the lesbians, and the gays will make them all look "fab-Uuu-lous!"

lord - Prisoners can get married now. So what was your argument?