Heterosexual people are naturally attracted to the opposite sex. They form relationships based on that attraction and they get married to those whom they are attracted to. Heterosexual people are in the position of privilege in that the “marriage tradition” was formed from that basis and perspective. Your argument is solely based on maintaining that privilege.

Homosexual people are attracted to people of same sex and they form relationships with same-sex people based on that attraction. Gay and lesbian people are excluded from “traditional marriage” on the basis of sexual orientation, not of whether they are male of female as you seem to suggest.

Your argument that gay people are allowed and entitled, under the law, to marry as heterosexuals do is offensive and it disregards the natural fact that a gay or lesbian person living in a heterosexual relationship would be incongruent with nature and morally it would be a lie. You are encouraging marriages that would turn out to be a disaster. Maybe people will stay married longer is there were not so much of this happening now.

It would be more productive for people with your perspective to work on their own homophobia than it is to encourage disingenuous marriages.

@Brandon
You just said it right there although you switched it up a bit. "a gay or lesbian person living in a heterosexual relationship would be incongruent with nature and morally it would be a lie". That is because being homosexual is unnatural- "un" meaning "not" and "natural" coming from the Latin root natura meaning "essential qualities". Homosexuals do not have the essential qualities for which nature intended- the ability to procreate. Yes homosexuals are people too. I have worked with some as an actor and they were very nice people and I enjoyed their company. However, as I said, nature never intended for same-sex relationships. There is not a single animal in nature, excluding monogendered organisms because that is how they're designed, that interact in homosexual relationships. That is because it is natural to be with a member of the opposite sex. Homosexual marriage not only goes against most religious institutions; it defies nature. You claim that homosexuals are naturally attracted to the same sex. I beg to differ. They are not naturally attracted; they are emotionally attracted. They long for an emotional attachment of worth and romanticism and they are willing to engage in practices that go against nature itself. Politics should never get involved in issues that include religion in this manner as it is, in fact, an attempt at undermining the church's authority. Politicians don't outright destroy something. They erode. And that's exactly what you see here.

Jesse, Your attempt to obfuscate the truth is not going to work here.

This statement: "a gay or lesbian person living in a heterosexual relationship would be incongruent with nature and morally it would be a lie" means it would be a lie for a gay person to live as a heterosexual person.

is its a lie for a gay person to

Brandon, I was not attempting to switch the truth with spin. I was merely correcting your statement. As I said, homosexuals are already incongruent with nature due their being homosexual and immoral according to religious doctrine. So for a homosexual to choose to live in a heterosexual relationship would indicate that he/she has either turned his/her back on homosexuality or they are living a lie as you said. In this case, the homosexual in question is violating the actual contract of a religious marriage, in which a man and a woman are joined together as one but still considers him/herself as a homosexual. As it is, even considering that a homosexual would choose to marry simply for acceptance into this world's social ethic doesn't make sense because a homosexual is already going against beliefs that have existed long before homosexuality was thought of. If a homosexual wishes to be legally married, there is always California. However, I don't think that the legal system should be interfering with what is almost exclusively religious in nature. At the bottom of your last comment, it looked like it was cut off but I assume you were attempting to ask me if it is a lie for a homosexual to be married. I would answer yes it is. They are lying to themselves to think that their emotional attachment to the same sex would not interfere with their marriage. They are lying about their attachment to their spouse. And religiously speaking, they are lying to God.

Jesse, I am Christian and I attend church. And I can tell you from personal interaction with other Christians than they do not all believe what you state as fact. I am not lying to my God I am celebrating his creation. I am living as he intended me to live. God does not make mistakes.

As far as gay not being natural...this too is your personal choice. You choose to think this even though there is approximately 20 years worth of science that proves otherwise. homosexuality exists and occurs in many, many species. This is documented and easily found, unless of course you are looking ar NARTH statistics. Theirs are based on theology not science. This position of homosexuality not being natural was settled a long time ago. And this is not a matter of "belief" it is a matter of science.

Brandon - Well said!

Brandon, I did look up what you said about the biology of a person determining someone's sexual orientation. Most of what I read agrees with you on that biology is a factor. But it is not overriding. Their are other factors involved such as the child's environment, personal experiences, parental impressions, and interactions with members of both sexes. The matter was not solved 20 years ago. It was simply decided that a homosexual person does have a biological tendency for preference of their own sex but ultimately it is still that person's decision. And I am happy that you are a Christian and celebrate His creation. However, if you are homosexual you aren't living as He intended. Just look in Genesis. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the cities were filled with sinful people. Abraham haggled with God to try to find 10 righteous people but he couldn't. It is also mentioned that homosexuals came to Abraham's cousin, Lot's, house to "know" his male visitors, who were angelic messengers (know in the Bible often refers to sexual intercourse). When he refuses to allow his guests to be, what is assumed, raped, they attempt to break down the door but the angels strike those men with blindness. And you're right, God makes no mistakes. When he created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden, everything was good. That is the way it should be. However, they chose to go against God and sin. Just because we are good does not mean we can choose agianst it as homosexuals do.

Jesse - The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was rape and inhospitality, not homosexuality. Genesis 19:4-5 says that ALL of the townsmen came to rape the angels. There is no way that every man in Sodom and Gomorrah was a homosexual. In addition, Genesis 19:8 states that Lot offered the men his daughters in place of the angels. Why would Lot offer his daughters to a group of homosexual men? This passage is about rape and inhospitality, not homosexuality.

Casey- Yes you are right in Genesis 19:4-5 it says, 'But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them'. These men came specifically for the other "men" that were in Lot's house. In Genesis 19:8 he does offer his daughters because then the intruders would be blameless. As the father, he could order his daughters to sleep with any man he wanted. Therefore the sexual act would be in accordance to nature and God's law and it would be voluntary because the daughters would be obedient to their father's wishes. Before the men refused Lot's daughters and attempted to break down Lot's door, they said that they would do worse to him. Again I reference the phrase "to know", which is often used to mean sexual intercourse

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution protects the freedom of speech. Given that, I do not believe that it is the place of any public library to impose censorship on books. Hitler did that, and we know how things ended for him and his fascist regime. In any event, penguins are loveable animals!!

Jeff, I'm not objecting to the books being in our libraries in my response but, since you go in the direction of authoritarianism, was merely helping to illustrate a point that the progressive ideals you espoused in this post will result in a regime of (depending upon the perspectives you identify with) mandatory "indoctrination" or "tolerance teaching". Again, it's already happening here in Maryland, so it's not a stretch to extend it to our homes here in Baltimore County.

P.S. You're right. Penguins are cute! :-)

This is about marriage equality. Heterosexuals can marry the people they love, homosexuals cannot. That is not equality. You say that gay marriage is, "Simply a tax cut for the rich." There are LGBT individuals in every income group. I assure you that all gay people are not rich.

Buzz, purely supposition on my part, but I would guess he was hoping to avoid being badgered. That said, you have now made the story about his "lying" or whatever name you wish to attach to it. First time it has probably happened to a politician.

Buzz, I did not mean to insinuate that you said "lying" because you did not, but clearly you intended to mean he misled people or at a minimum hid his true intentions. My point is that diverts attention from what I feel is the real story, which is his actual vote for then bill.

So it would be okay to discriminate against same-sex partners if it were for fiscal reasons?

Casey,

I am tired of politicians spending my money to help other people when working people like me seem to get nothing from this government. No sense in posting about the roads, fire dept, police dept, trash pick up, everybody gets those. Its the special interest groups that benefits. I don't depend on politicians to give me anything, I just want them to stop taking from me.

Marty - Same-sex married couples would not get special benefits, they would get the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.

Casey,

I'm a "Middle aged, heterosexual, Roman Catholic, republican,capitalist living in Maryland. Don't tell me about minorities ;-)

Marty - I also am Catholic, and I am a gay man. I am not asking for special rights. I am asking for the same marriage rights that heterosexuals enjoy so I can marry my partner of 10 years.

"My only concerns are fiscal." Buzz, Casey is right on this and you are not. In quotes is the post to which she is responding. That poster is making it very clear that if it costs money he wants no part of it. I believe she is also right that regardless of the economic or political realities of a situation, our Constitution does not give any weight to those other matters. Politicians might, but justifying discrimination is a poor excuse.

Buzz - You are absolutely right. Health care costs are crazy. That is another reason why many same-sex spouses need access to their partner's healthcare, access that quite often can only be granted through marriage.

Buzz - The only, "Agenda," that I have is for legal equality for LGBT individuals in Maryland.

Buzz, I have to agree with Casey here, the only agenda I have as a gay man, is the same protection under the law that heterosexual people enjoy. What is your argument against that? If there is any agenda here it could be seen as the Anti-LGBT agenda. It works as follows:

“Gay people are sick”, “Gay people are predators”, “Gay people are trying to indoctrinate our children”, “Gay people are perverted”, “I don’t want gay people teaching my children”, “Gay teacher will try to seduce my child”, “All Christians deplore gay people”, “God hates gay people” (this one is edited, replace ‘gay people’ with the English synonym for cigarette), “Gay people are bring the world to our final days”. It goes on and on.

To address the comment that everything costs money, yes it does. Those of us who do not have children still pay taxes to send your kids to public school. We pay income taxes and we are denied the right to file joint tax returns. We must buy separate insurance policies because the businesses we work for can legally discriminate against us and as a consequence we must buy two different health care policies.

Do we make a conscious decision to continue these kinds of discrimination of do we make the playing field level?

I reiterate: If there is any agenda here it could be seen as the Anti-LGBT agenda.

Linked in my comment above was the following:
http://abcdclassroom.blogspot.com/2009/10/and-tango-makes-three-lesson-plan.html

"Anti-bias" curriculum like this is being used in public schools where children have no choice but to attend, and parents, some unwilling and without the financial resources, have no choice but to send their children. It is unfair to categorize these people as bigots for wanting the opportunity to teach tolerance and family values their way.

Good individuals of all kinds can certainly and rightly speak on behalf of themselves that they are tolerant people who do not impose their will upon others, but above exemplifies an absolute fact. A progressive movement exists throughout our nation that is imposing itself. It hasn't declared success and dissolved in San Francisco where this type of curriculum is being used, and certainly will not go away here at home once the current battle is won.

We have lots of civil liberties in this nation, and that's part of what makes us so great. But when a civil liberty is turned into a civil right, it should never commit harm to others. And that is but one reason why so many of us are outraged. It is but one reason why Maryland legislators overstepped when they bowed before the pressure of Washington-bound Martin O'Malley and special interest groups. It is but one reason why this legislation will go to referendum, like it has in many other states, and will be overturned by the good people of Maryland!

Steve - Schools can acknowledge that there are different kinds of families without endorsing or condemning them.

I would wholeheartedly object to a teacher passing my eight-year old a card that directs them to act out an encounter where two homosexual penguins meet for the first time. (See the link I supplied in my response.)

Casey, sorry but you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Buzz, you have a tendency to lecture too much. Here is your quote

"Casey, the question dealt with the fiscal matters as related to the issue. It has nothing to do with discrimination."

Then you go on to say, ""Read this and show me where he makes any reference to the issue of the bill? He refers to the word "fiscal", not same-sex marriage."". Buzz, this is exactly what this article is about, it is not about other problems in society.

Your analysis is wrong. I stand by my earlier statements.

Here is sthe original quote from the original poster (Marty):

"Has there been any studies on the cost to the state and to business's in the state? My only concerns are fiscal."

It is very clear the poster could care less about discrimination if it does not affect him fiscally.

Stop lecturing.

Paul - Well said!

The founding fathers are moving around a whole lot. Starting with the freeing of the slaves during the Civil War, women's right to vote, etc.

Kevin,
1) The United State is not a Christian nation. If the forefathers would have wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation, they would have written God or Christ into the Constitution. God and/or Christ are not mentioned ONCE in the Constitution.
2) Homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in that they are both sexual orientations. Homosexuals can procreate the same way sterile heterosexual couples procreate: In vitro. As for HIV, A recent CDC study showed that African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are also disproportionately affected by H I V and A I D S. Does that mean African Americans and Hispanics should not be allowed to marry?
3) Many heterosexual couples engage is sodomy, and many gay couples do not.
4) If heterosexuality is covered in a school's curriculum, then homosexuality should be covered as well.
5) Same-sex marriage hurts no one. When 2 people who are related have a child together, the child is very likely going to be harmed because of genetic factors. As for pedophilia and bestiality, children and animals cannot give consent, thus you would be raping them. As for polygamy, I have no problem with polygamy.

I appreciate what you are saying. My point is that the economic impact of a civil rights decision should not be factored in when making a decision about civil rights. Why would Mr. Warren have asked about the economic impact of same-sex marriage if he was not going to use that information to support or oppose the legislation?

Since some people are referring to MY post, I'll tell you exactly what was going through my mind when I asked my question. Buzz is correct. Paul and I have gone back and forth no fewer than 100 times on this web site. My only concerns are fiscal means, my only concern is how much will it cost. I've stated before that I don't care about gay marraige. I don't care enough to support it and I don't care enough to fight it. Paul said "It is very clear the poster could care less about discrimination if it does not affect him fiscally." (A tactic perceived is no longer a tactic Paul, the "GUILT" thing doesn't work on me anymore). Paul's statement is correct but don't be mis-led into believing I think its all about me, I don't. All my money will go to my wife of 26 years when she's 70 years old and I am dead. I am sick and tired of "BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS" pretending to care about everybody else, all the while increasing their own power and profits. I'll use a liberal trick on the liberals and ask "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? How can you possible saddle our children and grand children with debt they will never be able to re-pay???

Marty, guess I'd made a good cop (snarky, sorry).

Here's my point to you, we have never had a discussion on economics and our country's debt woes. You don't know what positions I hold on economics, you have assume that because I have a liberal position on equality, I must be liberal on all positions. Simply not true. I can't be a capitalist real estate developer and a fiscal liberal at the same time.

Paul,

You cannot be a liberal and be fiscally responsible. You can be a blue dog democrat and be fiscally responsible, but not a liberal. That would be like a conservative who supports obamacare. People can claim to be a conservative and support obamacare, but it wouldn't be logical

You misunderstood my post, I said a "liberal position". I have liberal positions and conservative positions (labels really don't help). I don't like "blue dog" either because many have socially conservative positions that I don't like.

Different point on cost, more marriages helps a lot of businesses. Caterers, wedding attire, etc.

Delete
Paul Amirault
3:17 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Buzz, first let me get this off my chest. The snarky snarky comments and insults are not appreciated, I react the way I did with the exact same tone. We will get along much better if those are avoided.

Regarding the matter at hand, I read Marty Warren's comments regarding his fiscal concerns completely differently than you did. You interpreted them one way and Casey and I interpreted them completely differently. If the only thing anybody worries about is their fiscal concerns, this country/state is headed for a whole bunch of more trouble.

I have noticed that you have not commented or made an opinion on the merits of this bill or any other topic discussed on this forum. Correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be intentional on your part, which is to avoid taking any positions publicly on this forum.

If our founding fathers lived in this day and age, Yes I do believe they would support marriage equality. They were enlightened people. They believed in liberty.

Shirley, of course not, back then they absolutely would not support marriage equality.

They had slaves! Women could not vote! You had to own property to vote! Let go of the Founding Fathers stuff.

Many of the founding fathers wanted to end slavery but they needed the states to ratify the Constitution so they left it alone at that time. Slavery was an embedded part of all societies as were the limitations on women's rights at the time. They did create the amendment process which ultimately give women the right to vote and ended slavery. Unbelievable disrespect for our founding fathers on here.

Marty, here's the legislation.
http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/hb/hb0438t.pdf

There are some differences with a corresponding bill in the Senate, but if I were to pull my crystal ball out for a moment, I'll predict that the legislative community approves HB438 in its current form, rather than see two different bills go to conference.

Hope that helps.

Buzz, last points on this subject as well.

I promptly corrected my statement as it was not intended to,quote you as "lying", but I could see how you took it that way.

I understand you try to take personal issues out of things, but I felt your tone changed, thus I took offense.

The quote that concerns you is intended to follow "anybody" and "their" on an individual basis as that was the subject of the entire post. One individual's concerns that fiscal matters (and how they affect him) is his only concern worries me.

Regarding International financial matters, the world has a mess on its hands.

PS - you should go read the Huffington article on the phone calls Kach received prior to his vote, it is interesting.

Kenny - I disagree. I do not think the United States is a Christian nation. If the founding fathers would have wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation, they would have written God into the Constitution. God is not mentioned once in the Constitution.

In addition, Article six of the Constitution says, "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." If the founding fathers wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation, wouldn't they have wanted Christian leaders?

There is also the treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797, which says, "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."