I cannot disagree more with your opinion that homosexual marriage will harm no one. It will most certainly harm, at minimum, children. I am certainly no expert, but since you continue to voice your opinion on this matter, I will voice mine. The more I learn about the structure of a family, the more I believe that a child needs both a mother and a father - not just one or the other assuming a role.

I do not believe that every tradition we follow is good. But the marriage of one man and one woman is one that I think is good. That is why I will oppose homosexual marriage every chance I get.

Dan I couldn't disagree with you more. My sister and I were raised by a single father. We didn't need our mother. In fact, she was bringing the family down.

Also, these religious zealots are the reason that I changed my party affiliation from Republican to Independent. The church is filled with hippocrates that attempt to hide the heinous crimes of the clergy. They have no credibility!!!

BTW, if marriage is so sacred, then why is the divorce rate of heterosexuals so high?

Dan, I respect that you feel that way, but I disagree for a couple of reasons.

1) Allowing homosexuals the right to marry will have zero impact on your child rearing issue. They can live together and can adopt or have a child with a surrogate parent today. This bill will not change any aspect of their personal lives in that regard - thank goodness.

2) I find that most people that espouse your argument have no concern with the over 50% divorce rate that the nation currently has. Maryland is right in line with that average at 49%. (source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/mardiv.htm#state_tables) What about the kids in those homes?

3) What about the increasing rate of single mothers? In 2009, 41% of all births were to unmarried mothers (source: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc2.asp#fam2b). Do you share a concern about those children?

I find most people are fairly hypocritical when it comes to this debate when they say it is "for the kids". Or they are being disingenuous with their argument because it really is about religion but they don't want to say that. I would be happier if those people would just come out and say it's because of religion, because then I would know where they are coming from.

This bill only gives same sex couples the same marriage protection under the laws of this state that everyone else has. If two people love each other and want to get married, God bless them.

Dan: No offense, but I'd like to think we ALL know of many good people raised by single parents.

For starters, lets talk about divorce rates. Do you suggest we should just abolish divorce then? Clearly, with a divorce rate of 50%(ish) these kids can't possibly be raised well by split parents? Right? I'm just following your logic here.

See, I believe that a happy couple raises good kids. There are no shortage of orphans out there who would be happy to be loved by two adults. Orphans created by heterosexuals, I might add.

Finally, how exactly does repressing other people help you raise your kids better. Wait until yours are old enough to ask you "Dad, why won't you let these people be happy?".

John: I'm in the exact same boat as you re: the Republican party.

Look, I know this is going to get to a referendum vote. I've already posted on my facebook how saddened I'm going to be when this gets voted down. I am sure it will. It'll be closer then the 61/39 spread in NC, but are 50% of voters of sound intellectual mind to actually vote to NOT repress others?

Doubtful.

Tim, no offense taken. Our opinions are different. I would however choose better wording than, 'voters of sound intellectual mind.' I think you and I both know that intelligence has nothing to do with the difference of opinion on this matter. Men much smarter than you and I have become serial killers. I do believe however, that many (on both sides of the issue) are misinformed or uninformed...but this has nothing to do with intelligence.

Regarding the divorce issue - yes, I know many individuals that appear to have come away unscathed from single parenthood. Does this mean that is was easy to go through? Absolutely not. Do I think that a single parent can raise a child or children? Yes. Do I think that it would be easier with a mom and dad? Absolutely.

I think we both know that divorce is not a pretty thing. If no one ever had to go through it, the world would be dang near perfect. But we both know that just ain't so.

Based on my opinion, that a mother and father can best raise their child(ren), I will vote against homosexual marriage.

Dan: Just one question as I don't think I'm changing your mind.

Who do you think, generally speaking, would raise a child better:

1) Acrimonious divorced hetero couple
2) Happily married same-sex couple

Tim, I think that's an incredibly unfair question, as you have left out some additional choices. Obviously, you know where I stand on both of those positions so I cannot pick either. Can I add another option? (There most certainly are other options)

3) A happily married hetero couple.

I pick that one!

Tim, I agree that the Church needs to stay out of government. The Church is a government entity of its own. However, religion won't ever stay out of government. I go to a Baptist church and I hear the message that Christ gave: love one another. And I certainly think that gays are great people and possibly quite capable of taking care of children. However, homosexuality in Abrahamic terms (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) is considered to be a sin and I believe it. We were created to be with a member of the opposite sex. It is because God made us that way is why it is sacred to have a marriage of one man and one woman. In that regard, homosexuals do not have that sacred blessing and also cannot procreate. When it comes to the child, I believe that homosexuals are capable of loving a child as much as a married heterosexual couple is. But it's also in that duality that a balance is created in the home. You have the man, who is viewed as the tyrant ruler of the home. He is the king but as a proper father loves his kids and provides for them with all his heart. He teaches them about strength and looking out for your fellow man. The woman is softer. She teaches the values of loving one another and having an open mind. Introducing homosexual marriage into a child's life will bring confusion and questions into their life about who they are and where they stand. They'll want to know who their "true" parents are either to understand their choice or throw their hate at them.

Jesse: If we actually lived by the Bible, we'd still be in the dark ages.
I actually won't even argue that hetero couples in a happily married relationship are best equipped to raise children. However, this does NOT preclude same sex happily married couples from doing a similarly great job. It's just a bit tougher, I'd suspect. Sure, doing the whole surrogate thing (whether its surrogate womb or sperm) makes things complicated, but seriously folks. Who doesn't have a screwed up family in some way or another?

Adopted kids may eventually be looking for their birth parents one way or the other.
I find the refusal to allow kids to be adopted by a loving couple who have every intention to love, care, and raise them with proper values positively tragic.

Additionally, backtracking half a step, we aren't even discussing child raising specifically. We're talking about the ability of two human beings who genuinely love one another to be legally married. Not married in a religious ceremony that would fly in the face of that Church's parishoners.

On a semi-humorous tangent: How many religious overweight folks do you know who insist being homosexaul is a "choice", yet them being 30 lbs overweight is "genetic"?

Dan: It's a fair question. It's a real situation, and not unusual.
You can't bury your head in the sand. Well I mean, you CAN...but you know what I'm saying.

You're reading into my opinion and making a poor assumption.

Dan, you're right, I am making a poor assumption but so are you. Children of homesexual couples harms children? Assumption. Homosexual couples all want children? Assumption

Paul said it best below...
1. Gay couples live together now and will do so forever? True.
2. Gay couples have sex now and will do so forever? True.
3. Gay couples have children living with them now and will do so forever? True.
4. Gay couples split up like heterosexuals do and children will have issues? True.
5. So why can't they get married? Because you think it is wrong?

You're also right, there are probably some homosexual couples that do not want children.

So you believe that, and this is just my assumption, according to Paul's comment, because gay couples have been living together, having sex, housing children, and splitting up just like heterosexual couples, we should redefine the institution of marriage?

Yes. Yes I do. :)

Dan, we are not redefining marriage. Marriage is the social and legal recognition of two people who want to make a like-long commitment to each other. What we are doing here is including people who have been excluded for thousands of years.

Mark, that is clearly not the definition of marriage. If it were, any two people could get married. Think of the possibilities to your (re)definition of marriage - not just hetero and homo - but ANY two people.

Dan - Please define "ANY two people" further. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Thank you for asking Roni. That's exactly the point, the re-definition is not explicit. It will be up for interpretation.

Dan, I am telling you what marriage means culturally. Of course it does not mean this in the law or we wouldn't need a Marriage Equlity law, and because conservatives redefined the definition in 1996 when they wrote DOMA (The defense of marriage act) before that time the law did not state that marriage was defined as the legal relationship between a man and a woman... So, my point is that the people who want to argue the legal definition should not be changed have already changed it. Isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?

Please provide "possibilities." ANY two people should be able to get married (if of legal age.) So you lost me. What is there to interpret?

Dan, the law very explicitly defines what two individuals may and may not get married.
Read it for yourself. Scroll down to page 2: http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/sb/sb0241f.pdf
It would help if you knew what you were talking about instead of listening to other who do not and regurgitating those errors.

Mark, your definition seems to be what you want marriage to mean. To me, marriage is between one man and one woman - which is what's included in the current definition of marriage.

As for the hypocrisy, No, I don't believe so, although I can only assume (or devote a chunk of time to research the why question) the reason was that lawmakers saw marriage as too implicit and put language in to protect it. I'm certainly no expert on law, and I could be wrong, but the majority of the changes to our laws seem to be focused on further restricting what's already enforced. Your proposed redefinition would be removing restrictions. My thoughts anyway.

As for the bill you just posted a link to, this is exactly what we will be voting against. Please try not to insult me. I think that's fair.

Roni, I don't have to provide any possibilities for you. The redefinition would be up to interpretation. You seem smart enough to think of a few.

Actually I can't Dan, which is why I asked. You said "Think of the possibilities" and all I can come us with is...

man marries woman
man marries man
woman married woman

There's nothing left there to interpret.

Dan first of all you can read my many responses to statements on this blog. You will learn that I never try to insult anyone. I am trying to point out that your side is saying that we are trying to change a definition and that we should do that. The implication, whether it is yours or not tries to insinuate that changing a definition is wrong. I am simply saying that "clarifying" a definition IS changing it. This is where the hypocrisy lies. I am not calling you a hypocrite which is why I did not use the work "you." I will not sink to that level.

And as far as as the link I posted it was in response to your comment about the definition not being explicit. I am stating that it is. the bill which is now law stipulates that a son may not marry his mother and it is changed to an individual may not marry the individual's mother. this means a daughter cannot marry her mother and a son may not marry his father, and it goes through many other possibilities. These restrictions were already in place the language is being changed to stipulate exactly who may not marry who. And as far as age goes that is written into other laws.

Thanks for your response Dan. As for replying to comments below yours - there is no way to do it. This is counter-intuitive, but you should reply to your own comment if you want it in the same "thread".

Ah, thanks for the tip.

Thank you for pointing out the similarities between the arguments for segregation and same-sex unions. They certainly seem like they have similar roots and messages.

They certainly do. You see the same thing repeated all throughout history. Not just ours...

Mariya,
The "creeping crud" refers to something that is not on the agenda today, but will be next go round. It is the incremental destruction of society to continuously include more benefits for squeeky wheels.
As to the books, there are huge numbers of books that fabricate both ways toward their own agenda. I believe horrendous treatment is not limited to "people of color groups" as the poor in any and all societies have always been the most abused. FYI - the "Anglo perspective" on history is not all fabrication, just as the biased writings of many others is not all truth or all inclusive in detail. And yes, we are in the toilet, not headed toward one.
Our country has consisted of one minority group after another entering the United States, assimilating into society, and working toward better opportunity. Lately, we have become a country where people spend their time finding new and improved ways to get more benefits for free. Same sex marriage is just another benefit grab by a minority group that has been shot down in every state where voters had a say. Would you mind if I married my pet dog so I can file joint taxes and get a nice tax break? Maryland is one of the wealthiest states in the nation, and we still can't balance the budget. We need to cut the tax burden, not increase it.

So kids who have same sex parents should suffer because their parents are unable to access the 1100+ benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage? So same sex couples should pay more taxes? So same sex couples should not receive the same social security benefits, even though the pay into that system the same as heterosexual couples? Denying marriage equality means all of those things. That is the reality right now for same sex couples in the state of MD at the moment.

I agree with you sooo much when you say that a loving family is the healthiest environment to raise kids, but just cannot understand why you don't feel that a loving family can be two individuals of the same sex.

Jon,
If you read my post I did not say that homosexual couples are not loving. I am sure you can find instances of it. My point was that a loving father and a mother provide the best family unit.

Jenny,
I am not well read on the subject, but I doubt children are suffering because of the lack of benefits extending to same sex couples. It seems to me the challenges a same sex couple living together with kids faces are no different than a single parent raising kids in regards to the benefits extended to them.

<i>BD said: If you read my post I did not say that homosexual couples are not loving. I am sure you can find instances of it. My point was that a loving father and a mother provide the best family unit.</i>

So, I'm going to get down to brass tacks here. There's NOTHING in this bill that changes any part of what you are talking about. Same sex couples can create a family today through a myriad of ways, regardless if this bill passes or not.

Since that is the case, I don't see how your argument has any applicability here. What is the relationship between how you feel about the best environment to raise a family and the contents of this bill?

Jon, if a gay man is going to have a relationship it will be with a man. That is the best relationship for him to be part of. If a lesbian is going to have a relationship it will be with a woman and that would aparently be the best relationship for her. IF either of these individuals chose to raise children with a partner it would be best for both of them to have a healthy and uplifting relationship before doing so. The best environment has nothing to do with the parents being a one man/one woman couple it has more to do with the loving environment in which the children are raised. Check the statistic, It appears to me that the children that do well from most perspectives are children raised by two lesbians, not by a heterosexual couple.

Could the lack of abuse in lesbian households be due to child abuse being primarily instigated by the father? Is a similar trend found in single mother households? Additionally there are only 78 adolescents included in the study which seems like an awfully small sample size. I find this article is lacking a lot of information, but it does make an excellent propaganda piece which is what you would expect from a left leaning liberal news outlet!

Exactly. Love and tolerance - unless you disagree with us!

You say those who are religious are not tolerant, yet how come none of their comments have resorted to name calling and they are able to have a healthy debate on the topic? Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that some those who are anti-religious are also the ones that are not tolerant.

BD, I've noticed the same. It may be that some are a little bit 'acrimonious.'

I am not tolerant of organizations that systemically tolerate and cover up crimes against innocent children... Have you been to the Vatican? It's the biggest waste of money and shows just where all of the money is going! It's also going to lawyers to cover all of the lawsuits. I am openly a non-believer... I don't claim to be something that I'm not... I don't cheat, I don't steal, I tell it like it is. I teach my kids that if you can live with yourself and your decisions, that's all that matters. I don't pretend to live by a code that I don't follow. I'm just fine with who I am!

John,
Please don't lump me in with the Catholic church. I am a Protestant and just because I am religious does not mean that I should be discounted because of the crimes of some. Should we hate all Muslims because some Muslims commit mass murder under the name of Allah? Of course not! Likewise don't hate on me because others have committed crimes under the guise of religion.

John,
You are certainly the master of generalizations. Many religious people believe in much of evolution. I call the creator of the universe God. What do you call the creator of the universe? You know, at that instant just before the Big Bang?

Paul,

My feeble mind can't grasp the concept of the universe or the big bang. It's hard to believe that since everything is infinite that it started with a finite event. What is the universe? Where does it end? There certainly must be some boundaries, somewhere right? I don't have the answers, but I know that they certainly aren't in the bible.

My generalizations come from my personal experiences with people that claim to be "religious". I find that most of them are frauds and liars... Just my experiences. I'm smart enough to know that not everyone is like that, but from my experiences most of them are.

Genius points for FIFA. Write us a book sometime on your take on the origin of the universe. Please provide references.

FIFA,
No one knows the origin of the universe. God is my answer to "how the matter got there in the beginning" since matter can be neither created or destroyed. If you consider that making up an answer, so be it. I assume you prefer to have no answer at all. Enjoy drifting through the cosmos.

Bill: Maybe that's because people' "faith" consistently involves oppressing others?

See, I'm not suggesting you not believe in whatever you choose to believe in, in your own private life. I have zero problem with people having whatever religious preferences they choose. It's another foundation of this country (along with Separation of Church and State)
It's where this lack of logic affects public policy that I draw the line.

The irony of all this, of course, is that the founders of this country were hardcore religious Puritans.

Latest Example:
http://www.kwch.com/kwch-news-ccd-ks-pastor-says-government-should-kill-gays-20120530,0,5097982.story

Well done PH patch community. We actually made it 24 hours before someone brought out the epicly false "Slippery Slope/Pandora's Box" ol' standby.

That's progress.

Unfortunately for you argument's sake, social issues like marriage and the family impact the economy greatly. Our tax money is being is being siphoned off at alarming rates to subsidize the vast numbers of out-of-wedlock children and single moms and dads. The damage to our economy and debt has been great and immeasurable. The acceptance of gay relationships in this country has already done a ton of damage to our nation. HIV and STDs in the gay community far outweigh the rates in the heterosexual community. Many with HIV end up on medical assistance so the tax payer gets the bill for tens of thousands of dollars of treatments for each individual who contracted HIV from their own immoral behavior. Taxpayers or businesses are also forced to foot the bill for hormone therapy for transsexuals and Viagra for homosexuals. This is all so unbelievably damaging to our nation.