Go for it Anita. Woman up and put your life history out there for everyone to see. It is a tough road, but I think you'll be up for the task.

No, it is wrong. What is worse, it is dead wrong for our representatives to represent lobbyists rather than listen to their constituents. An issue as serious as this should not have been left up to politicians who vie for votes but should have been put up for democratic vote at the ballets!

Equal rights for all? Does that meanthat now a Muslim or a Mormon can have multiple spouses? That would be equal. Does that also mean that 13 year olds who desire to marry after shaving a child together (something that happens often in Baltimore and pg county) can marry without need of parental consent? Does it mean that an aunt can marry her nephew - or an uncle can Mary his nephew? If granting marriage rights to homosexuals is equal rights than why not give equal rights to everyone?

How does one make the leap in logic that marriage equality somehow equates to marrying pets? I know, it's upsetting to have your world view changed, but being a grown-up sure is tough sometimes.

How about jest marryin yer sister...

Pets can not consent - but pedophiles can get youth to consent. Uncles and nieces or nephews (or neices and nephews at the same time) may all consent...why not allow that now?

Someone asked, how does one make such a leap, I reply to that and say that with consent, there is absolutely no leap.

We have that saying...when anything goes, everything will go. This is but a single step in that direction.

I guess it's not such a vocal minority if it's been successful in multiple states, with more coming down the line. The real minority are the people opposed to all members of society, even those who live lifestyles they disapprove, from having equal rights. Just because you're opposed to it, doesn't mean it's right to be intolerant.

As far as other "abnormalities" becoming the norm....bestiality is illegal because it's physical (and arguably mental abuse) of a non-consenting animal. Same goes with pedophilia. Homosexuality involves two consenting adults engaged in a personal relationship. It's kind of weird to me how a lot of socially conservative people are overly concerned with how other people spend their lives. It's like they're almost, I don't know, too concerned. Almost curious...

I don't want to know what is going on between consenting adults in their bedroom, including yours M., it is none of my business. What you consider normal in the bedroom someone else might consider weird, who are they to judge you. It is not like homosexuality is new.

I'm not going to get into some long drawn out argument with you guys because I can see, as usual, its going to start becoming personal insults. I don't care what people do in the the privacy of their own homes, just don't try to force me to accept and, indirectly, pay for your choices through legislation.

M. no one has insulted you, you are entitled to your opinion. Rational arguments are just that. It is irrational arguments that cause angst. For example, you just indicated you don't want to pay indirectly for someone else's choices. Doesn't the GLBT community already pay indirectly/directly for your choices through the taxes they pay? Why is that payment okay? Because that's the way it has always been?

This will all go away in November just like prop 8.

Yes, it does mean so much...but to many of us, what it means is not good.

The equal rights claim is a false claim. It is not equal rights if only the views of only one group is looked after. Can now my Mormon neighbors or the growing Muslim community file in the court for multiple spouses now? What about their rights? Can a man madly in love with his cousin now marry her? Or his sister? Or his father? What about their rights? What about the 65 year old man and the 15 year old girl? Or the 13 year old boy? What about their rights? So equal rights aren't so equal when others disagree with them? Just because many would see what I wrote as a deviancy - so many others view homosexuality in the same light. This bill serves only two groups - the minority group of homosexuals who want to make it "normal" and "acceptable" rather than a form of deviant lifestyle choice. And the politicians who scratch the back of lobbyists hoping for the payback at election time.

I will differ with you due to a specific term, The normalization of deviancy. When a society permits the decline of it's civilization step by step it is bound to reach the precipice from which it can not climb back up. Alcohol, drugs, gambling, homosexuality, open fornication and adultery, foul language, mayhem as entertainment, the intentional decline of our educational systems, a system of debt that forces the citizenry into serfdom, the state legislating more and more power for itself, the military powers receiving policing powers, and on and on - how much more can America take before we see that we are no longer the America promised in our youth?

This is but another step towards a fall.

As fort he issue of money, the homosexuals actually use the argument of survivor benefits in the ss system as one of the reasons to legalize their marriage...if that is an issue perhaps we can get rid of outdated survivor benefits or make a person able to list their recipient similar to a will.

Love is not whatbis being argued! Love can never be legislated. To compare love with marriage is itself a logical fallacy since neither does marriage ensure love nor love ensure marriage. What is being argued is the changing of laws to suite one single minority of people who choose a certain lifestyle choice, who choose to behave a certain way, and who choose to make a private action (sexuality) into a public issue legislated by government.

Marriage itself is supposed to be a union before God ( and in our society, the state), witnessed before the community, to bring families (not just to people) together. The entire purpose of marriage is to make legal what would normally be illegal (sexual relations) in order to protect society against fornication, adultery and illegitimate children which all serve to weaken the society as a whole as well as the individuals themselves. So in essence, the marriage is making lawful the illicit relations and not the relationship or the love. I for one am not one to condone sexual deviancy and I do not think it is right for our state to legislate it as acceptable.

Really? Do you really believe that if someone proposed making incest legal, it would pass a vote. I mean, really in your heart do you believe this? I ask because I want to know where the protesters are that are trying to make incest legal? When is the Incest Pride Day parade? Where are the pro-incest celebrities who would speak out in support of incest? Or, do you think maybe you're just a small person who fears the inevitable changes that are coming? Do you hope that maybe if you shore up against equal marriage you'll somehow chase the gay menace away? That's all the homosexuals will take their ball, go home, and be straight? Just curious.

Your definition of "sick" is just what?

Like people with small minds. Ah, now I get it. Thanks!

If my children ever come to me and tell me they are gay I will tell them I love them and am proud of them for having the courage to stand up to bullies like you. Of course, by then, it won't matter because by then all people, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race will have equal rights. Unless people like you continue to try to stop progress.

I need help? If Jesus doesn't like what me or anyone else says (or how people lives their lives) I'm sure we'll take it up on the other side. Besides, I was taught that he was supposed to be all loving and all forgiving. I don't know where you're getting your interpretation from, but I'll take my chances on what I was taught.

And as for Jesus...well, I've got my eyes on him and he better not slip up.

Huh?

fun fact: Sodomy hasn't applied to consensual gay intercourse since 1998 (oral) and 1999 (anal, with consent) in the State of Maryland. (Williams v. Glendening 1998-99).

So welcome to 13 years ago.

What makes anyone choose unhealthy lifestyles? For example, what makes a heroin addict continue to use when he knows what bit does to himself, his family and the community? When he knows what others say about him and what he does? I do not know why people choose to live the way they do...but certainly it is a choice.

No, we can not choose who we love but we do indeed choose whether or not to act upon it! Does the man who has been happily married for twenty years deny his attraction to the twenty year old beauty? No, of course not - but does he choose to act upon it is another matter. So again, why you choose to do what you do in the privacy of your home is beyond me...and it is none of my business or the business of legislation.

As for marrying a cousin in Maryland, unless the laws have recently been changed (in the last 16 years) it is not legal here. And I find it interesting that you would be for 'equal rights' for some but not all. How can you celebrate the legislation (making lawfull of a privilege and not a right!) for homosexuals to marry but be 'against' the privelage to be granted to any other consenting groups. You think that two men or two women who consent should be given the privilege of marriage but not two women and a man or an aunt and her niece? How exactly is that equal?

No. I do not suggest that at all. What I suggest is that if this privilege is granted to one minority, then why not grant it equally to other minorities. Whether they be insestuous, whether they be polygamous, or if they be pedophiliac...as long as they are consenting, why not open up the privilege (it is not a right) to every consenting group? [and this automatically negates beastiality as it cannot be a consensual relationship.]

As for your logic, what you actualy said is (a) leads to (a) and so (a) is to blame for this. This is clearly not what is being said in any of my statements nor can one who is actualy trying to follow any schema of logic draw this from them.

What i do suggest is this, if we grant the privilege of marriage to a minority group based on their lifestyle choice, then it sets the clear and unarguable precedent for other groups to demand equal access to that privilege...and then even I would be forced to say, 'why not, if we granted it to group (b) why not (c), (d), and (e)?'

What is more, I am argueing that marriage does not condone or limit love. It does not say who one can have love for or a relationship with. It does legitimize private sexual relations. (and I know there are tax reasons, insurance reasons, ss reasons, etc. Tied in with it now - but that is not the original purpose but more of a modern side effect thereof) hence, by legislating the legal privilege of marriage for homosexuals is actualy legislating private homosexual activities which is not a public affair at all, and especially not one to be condoned by a government. To take a giant leap forward in my expression - it is the legitimization by the state of social and sexual deviancy.

Where you lose those who believe in same sex marriage is you consider it a "privilege" and they consider it a right, but only between two consenting adults. You also lose them when you say "it is the legitimization by the state of social and sexual deviancy". As I am sure you are aware that what goes on behind bedroom doors needs no legislative legitimacy as the SCOTUS has already clearly ruled on that issue.

Although I disagree with you because I do believe it is a civil rights issue covered by the 14th amendment to the Constitution, it is still an interesting discussion.

Again, the civil rights found in the 14th amendment (which itself is debated) is conditioned upon the rights of citizens, not privileges. What is more, it is not rights of lifestyle choices that are recognized (drug use, adultery, homosexuality, beastiality, lawyers, emo's, gangsters, etc.) but the rights of people regardless of race, gender, national origin, etc. (I.e. Those things outside of one's control...decreed).

So, unless they are able to find a biological basis for one's being homosexual, they do not fall under the protection of the 14th amendment any more than a polygamous Mormon.

As for the choice to be heterosexual, I do indeed make a consciouse choice everyday on whether I make that information public, if I act upon it, etc. My sexuality is my own business and mine alone...it is not an issue to be legislated.

As for being born gay...I do not deny that some are born with imbalances of hormones. I do not deny that natures are actually corrupted from the way they are "supposed" to be. But I strongly feel that these deviations, these mutations that some are born with are due to the polutions and excesses in our society, the contamination of our food supply for profits, the chemicals put into almost everything we use on a daily basis and the general pollution of our environment. This however is a minority as most do indeed take upon themselves this lifestyle later in life (after 'experimenting'). I know several bisexuals and homosexuals that weren't upon this lifestyle until their twenties -again, often the outcome of other lifestyle choices such drugs, partying and loose sex lives) - and then claimed this is how they always were inside. It seems that most people upon the homosexual lifestyle chose it due to external circumstances rather than being born in this way. It has even become like a fad in the African American community in the last two or three years in Baltimore city. Another prominent cause is molestation but that is a bridge I will not touch upon as it tends to be too sensitive for many.
So, choice or not...we still choose how we behave.

William, your quote - "My point - what homosexuals do in their homes is their business. When they force others to accept or legitimize their private behaviors it is no longer private and becomes a matter for the people..." has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not a matter of dispute or legitimization, it is the law of the land. What they, or you, do behind your bedroom doors between consenting adults is none of anybody's business. That is the law.

We disagree as to right or privilege when it comes to marriage.

There are at least three reasons that a marriage may be voided in the state of Maryland...in which the marriage is invalid from the beginning. There is similalrly three reasons why a marriage may be voided later, even if they were viewed as valid at the time of marriage. The fact that these are laws on the books precludes a need for an actual case. By law, the state has the right to revoke a marriage license...a license, which is itself a formal permission! The fact one needs a license from the state negates that it is a right and is a clear demonstration of the fact that it is a privilege.

As for my private behaviors...they remain private, they are not public and you do not know whether I am a Mormon with several families, a pedophile, insestuous, a fornicator, adulterer, anything else. You do not know and what goes on in my home is not your business.

I would expect that if a company doesn't want to hire me due to any reason it is their right and they should not be forced by law to hire or retain anyone ever...for any reason be it race, language, gender, sexuality or even style. If a company wants to discriminate then they should be able to...and in a democratic society the people have a right to discriminate against them as an organization. But this is just an extension of our discussion and not relevant to the topic of marriage itself.

In my oppinion you are a hypocrite who speaks in pointless circles. I can only say that based on my life experiences and even within this thread that you are a minority in your way of thinking of which I am most grateful for. I do agree with you in that what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business and vice versa as well as who you are or wish to marry is none of my business with exception to being a pedophile, as if you are that is the business of all and actions should be taken to remove you from society where you can no longer cause harm to a defenseless child. That statement alone makes me realize that I am in no way dealing with a rational and perhaps even sane person. I also realize any hope for an inteligent discussion with you has long since passed and I can only apologize for thinking that it may have.

First of all, it doesn't surprise me that I have been insulted...being called a hypocrite kinda surprised me, but not your insulting me. My arguments are sound and the last refutation to such arguments tend to be personal attacks...no problem. But I would like to ask two questions. First, why do you use the term hypocrite? Secondly, how am I speaking in circles, unless by that you mean repeatedly stating my case...which is demanded when all the responses lead right back to the very basics of my position.

After this, a pedophile in our society is any adult who sleeps with a minor...versus one who sleeps with a pre-pubescent child. As for the later, I agree with you. As for the former, I totally disagree as there are plenty of 13, 14, 15, and 16 year olds that not only consent to sexual relations but fill the pregnancy wards of hospitals. If a 15 young woman wants to marry a 20 year old man who is responsible, so be it. Why not. So, perhaps we agree but the semantics are between us...or perhaps we disagree and you view teenagers as little children incapable of being spouses and parents even though so many date, have sex and produce children without the responsabilities to one another found in marriage. (just for the record, I am against all sexual relations outside of marriage.)

As for the closing insult about the intelligent conversation...it is interesting to me that you would say this when you seem to be arguing from a personal position of feelings and emotions while I am looking at the matter from that of law and society. As I stated again and again, I think in our society the decision should be one left for the voters of a region and not dictated by so called representatives who are so often clearly only representing the issues of lobbyists. My position is one of true equality - if you give the privilege to some fringe, minority, lifestyle groups, why not others? And this move, again, in my opinion, is but one more descent in the fall of our once great nation...if anything goes, soon everything will go. So why do you say my conversation is unintellegent when I position my case in arguments and you position yours in what you want? You seem to think that disagreeing with you is unintelligent...that by itself is a sign of both immaturity and failure to bring an intelligent conversation one's self. You have demonstrated this by insulting rather than discussing the issues at hand, your positions and mine. And so I am left scratching my head wondering, why is it that the homosexual community expects me to change my position on the matter when they have no conversation to bring to the table?

I have already mentioned about why people choose to live in ways that are detrimental to themselves...there is no need for me to redress it.

As for your own homosexuality, I would ask you when you realized this about yourself? Did you know it before you involved the unsuspecting female or did your realization come later? Did you consciously try to be normal and traditional or was it just being yourself until your discovery?

As for you, your partner and your father...it is your business and I could care less who supports and who doesn't, it doesn't effect my feelings towards the legislation.

Finally, there is a difference between respecting our fellow man and accepting legislation. I think it is an issue to be democratically voted upon at the ballets and not an issue for politicians and lobbyists to decide on behalf of a society. Disagreeing with you (or me) does not make one less intelligent, educated or understanding...it simply expresses a different point of view, perhaps even a different world view. It is very immature to label others due to their disagreements. If on the other hand one is belligerent or disrespectful, that is another matter - but disagreeing, argueing, struggling for their perspective in legislation...this does not speak of one's intelligence whether they are for or against this or another issue.

Please lay out how I am speaking in circles. My positions clear from the start to the end. The state should not be legislating same sex marriage. If they allow this group to demand this privilege then why not permit it for others. It is my opinion it is a social deviance and is destructive to both the individual and society. That is my view, the only circular reasoning is that I continue to connect the dots.

I did begin using the semantics of the argument but chose to alter my terminology to construct the discussion in a sounder frame work...so though my terminology did change, my position and arguments have remained consistent throughout.

Well, it is fine if the dots are square...as long as they connect.

As for pedophilia, I have two points to make about this issue. First, I have defined my position clearly about three minutes ago on your other comment. Secondly, I do equate true pedophelia with homosexuality - both of which I think are deviances that harm those involved and the greater society. And that is my position regardless of how you see it. I am sure there are pedophiles right now angry that I would equate them with homosexuals...because at least they (add whatever argument they may bring). Just because the pot calls the kettle black doesn't make it clean.

As for civil rights and segregation, there is absolutely no correlation between the two -period.

As for the powers that be stepping in, that in itself is a joke if one returns to history. It was the powers that be that enslaved people of color, it was the powers that be that established an institute of oppression based on race and it was the powers that be that fought to retain that system. Human beings are entitled to human rights without any bias based upon race, gender or national origin. Constitutional rights (which declare themselves to be God given and inalienable) are supposed to be universal to all living in the u.s. Regardless of race, gender or national origin. Marriage itself is not a constitutional right nor a human right but is a privilege licensed (permitted), registered and revokable by the state.

I am not the issue here. And that is the biggest problem in these discussions...they are made personal when they are social. Still, I am fine with also wishing you a good night and ending it upon that.

Stereo typing? Why can I not simply be an individual trying to discuss the current affairs issues that are effecting my community? Why can I not simply be a neighbor here in the state of womanly words and manly deeds who has an opinion that differs from yours? Why can I not simply be a neighbor who opposes the decisions made by people who are claiming to represent me but are acting in a way contrary to that? Why can I not be a fellow citizen of our over taxed state who wants major issues such as this to be voted upon democratically? I am an individual...not a stereo-type.

If you want to start using stereotypes I could have made this conversation rapidly decline downhill a long time ago...but that is not how discussions are supposed to be treated.

Well, since saying ood night wasn't sufficient for you and you choose to continue upon a downward spiral, I will go ahead and join you...why not?

You know, people such as yourself used to be institutionalized, treated and even cured of what was once termed a mental disorder.