Boy, the ignorant never hesitate to show the world how stupid they are, and the bigots come out like roaches at night. Thank you for shining the light of truth in this topic, and scaring the bigots back under their rocks.

I read the comments on your article about legalizing gay marriage. I am mystified how people have the arrogance to say that they know better than I do who I should marry.

Whether homosexuality is born - like race - or chosen - like religion - we have no business legislating away the freedom of adults to make adult decisions, both in the bedroom and in the living room.

These same prophets have been preaching against interfaith marriage, interracial marriage and now gay marriage. There is not a shred of evidence that they are correct now.

It is time to not just protect marriage, but improve it. People should be choosing who TO marry instead of who CAN marry.

Thank you for pointing this out to your readers.

Wow. The beginning of this piece made the author sound like he might actually be reasonable (although wrong). Choice or genes are not the only two options for why someone is gay. Environmental factors, prenatal or in early childhood, may play a large part, and you couldn't then say that someone chose it. So, Mr. Hancock's statement that no one chooses to be gay is not necessarily untrue just because no gene has been found. In any event, a reasonable discussion to have.

However, when you digress into the tired and absolutely stupid comparisons to bestiality and pedophilia, in which cases one of the parties is not able to give consent, you just show yourself to be just another person blinded by irrational fear and bigotry. Animals can't consent, animals can't consent, animals can't consent. How many times must it be said before it gets through your thick skulls? Animals can't consent. Again? Animals can't consent. Animals can't consent. One more time just in case you haven't grasped the concept yet. Animals can't consent.

It seems no one ever calls these prejudiced people on their claim of following God's laws and marriage equals one man + one woman. If they truely believed this they would be clammering to outlaw divorce and remarriage which is against God's laws ("What therefore God has joined together, let no one put asunder." Mark 10:9). But evidently these are the kind of people who like to pick-and-choose what to follow according to how it affects them.

I will pack up my family and business and leave Maryland should it pass gay marriages. I refuse to let my children be subjected to such sickness. Be sure that if its legal then its require to be thought in schools.

To the respondent who wrote, "..Be sure that if its legal then its require to be thought in schools." I'm certain that you meant "taught" not "thought". But it's exactly your kind of thinking that brings us to this mess. Narrow minded and prejudicial thinking does not allow for "critical thinking" to be fostered or taught in our schools. Go ahead - move. Climb back under your rock with the rest of your "change over time" brethren. We'll be gald to be rid of you and your ilk.

Kevin: Good riddance. Just please don't come to New Jersey.

The Baltimore Sun was very wrong to weigh in against the wishes of the majority of Marylanders. Both homosexuality and gay marriage are morally wrong and should not be recognized or sanctioned in Maryland or any state.

Just look at Canada, where the government has fallen prostrate to the wishes of the homosexual activists, and you will see that people now get fined and penalized (by the government) just for expressing their opinion against homosexuality now! Wake up, people, before it's too late!

Fortunately, most Americans are aware of this and, while Maryland is sadly not one of them (yet), a majority of states have voted on and approved constitutional amendments outlawing such immoral 'marriages'.

Well, the idiot who claims that the "definition of marriage" has been "held by the human race for 5000 years" is living proof of the intellectual failure of the bigoted side of the argument.

The Bible, only about 2000 years old, mentions six different kinds of marriage, none of which are legal today. In fact, none of them have been legal for a long time. Several changes to the definition of "marriage" have occurred in the last 150 years, including women no longer being property of their husband, married women retaining the right of choice when and if to have sex, and legalization of interracial marriage.

Marriage is not an unchanging institution, ours is not an unchanging society, and this is not an unchanging world. Gay marriage is coming, sooner or later, like it or not. Your choice is to stand in the way and be remembered as a bigot, or to recognize that in "the land of the free" we're supposed to be able to choose for ourselves how to live our lives, even if it means marrying someone others don't want us to.

It seems to me that the point of a column like this is to advocate a viewpoint in a way that a straight news article could not. It might be unethical to explicitly support (or oppose) gay marriage in a "just the facts, analyze the facts, repeat the facts" article. But to say that a columnist can't take a stance in a column that has permitted him to do so in the past on other topics doesn't seem very reasonable.

I support the legalization of gay marriage, by the way.

Marriage is a good thing. And gay marriage can be accepted is really a turning point for the life of LGBT. Actually, divorce may also happen to straight people. "As to love, we should cherish it and love the one you love.." it is what we all bisexual get after the discussion at the bisexual club of http://www.bimingle.com . Anyway, making the law of marriage and divorce more complete is good thing for us LBGT. Thanks for giving us more right and making things easier for us.

I just wanted to give my two cents in.

First off, I find it funny (by this I mean somewhat ignorant or arrogant) that those who disagree with another usually seem to call the other's arguments "stupid" in some form or another). Why is that neither side can be civil? So you disagree; I'm sure you disagree about a lot of things, no need to ridicule each other's arguments. If you have reason for, present it; if you have reason against, present it. All I've read so far is a bunch of "you're wrong" and very little "this is what I believe".

Using words to attack the person instead of present a counter-example do neither side any good and just make it sound like neither side has a "good" reason, but just a lot of strong opinion.

However, just to be fair, I'll present a response and my understanding of the reasoning for both sides.

I put quotes around sin because it's a religious definition and thus is "factual" but still an opinion.

Side A: pro same-sex marriage
1) both members give consent
2) they're adults, let them be adults and make up their own mind
3) other "sins" are legal, so why is this one illegal?

Side B: against same-sex marriage
1) It's "sinful" and thus should be illegal
2) The definition for marriage has been around for milliniums; don't change it now.
3) It's a choice, they can choose not to "sin"

Now my own arguement real quick for each side

In support for pro same-sex marriage:

Marriage should be a choice between two consenting adults (animals and children cannot give consent). Also, the only way you know what happens in someone's bedroom is if you're there. If you don't like what someone does in their bedroom, don't go in their bedroom while they're doing it. Regardless if it's genetic or not, no one wakes up one day and "chooses" to be gay. Why would they? So they could get many of their "rights" (debatable) denied? So that others can hate them? Would someone really "choose" to do that?

In support of those against same-sex marriage:

Homosexual acts are sinful (to clarify homosexuality is not sinful, it is homosexual acts only). Thus, America (or any other body) shouldn't enforce laws that would "enable" (once again debatable) someone to commit a sinful act. Although America is not based on religion, it has a certain moral code. For this reason, murder, infidelity, and other "immoral" acts are outlawed. Because many (not sure if all, but most from what I know) religions see homosexual acts as sinful, it is not merely the whim of one religion controlling the populous. Instead, like murder and other immoral acts, it is many religions and systems of thought all agreeing to the same thing - homosexual behavior is immoral. Why would you believe that your opinion is correct when most religions would disagree? Why would you wish to change an idea that has existed for millinium and extend it to a group of people who commit immoral acts. And most importantly, why is that you call those that disagree bigots, whereas we would not call you "ungodlike" (not sure the right wording) when you disagree with the majority of religions and would condone an act whereas most religions (and systems of beliefs) would not sanction it?

Thanks for your time; it has been fun.

"( I'm bringing in the moral angle because homosexual acts have been considered immoral by all religions on the planet, even though you didn't bring it up in your column.)"

Every religion on the planet hmm? Thats a pretty bold statement. I know for a fact several Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Therianthropes, as well as several denominations of Christianity who would wholeheartedly disagree with you on this point. Lets try not to make blanket statements for everyone, hmm?

What a curious letter. Starts out sounding reasonable, but quickly degenerates into an incoherent religious yer gonna burn in hellfire screech. How tired.

Whether or not homosexuality is genetic, I cannot say. I've never given my genes a close examination. I can say, 19 years ago, I had a very bad car accident. Among other injuries, I bashed my head pretty hard, was in a coma for a week, and spent years recovering.

For a time I "lost" all my memory (I did not start to speak for nearly 2 months, and my memory was not there at all, and then very hazy for a long time). At no time in this experience was I ever confused about being gay, at no time did I wonder who gave me a charge (my boyfriend at the time or a nurse). Even when I did not know my name or recognize my mother, I was always happy to see my boyfriend when he came to visit. No, we were never sexual in the hospital, but seeing him made me happy. In a way noone else did.

So, I did not remember anything, how to talk, my name, did not recognize my family, and I still reacted to a handsome young man. Sounds rather gay, yes? Yes. Genetic or not, I am gay before I have words, have a history, even have a name. Thank goodness I live in Massachusetts and have been able to marry the man I love.

you hear of bigotry in history, and you scratch your head, and say" how could a reasoning people come to this conclusion."

is it because humans live conditioned existance not a reasoned existence.

scripture never said homosexuality was a sin. any exercise of reasoning would show that. but religious people dont live in reason, they live in the conditioned environment of their religion....... this means this and this means that. i should know i have been kicked off a number conservative religious websites because i attempted to engage in a reasoned discussion.

two non religious facts make it quite clear that homosexuality is just a part of god's diverse creation.

homosexuals compared to heterosexuals have never been found lacking in any sector of society. they are not less a father, doctor,soldier, pastor counselor, administrator,friend, neighbor, attorney, sister etc.

and as far as this sexual relations thing goes, in heterosexual commited relations, frequent satisfying sexual intimacy is considered to be indicative of a healthy relationship. when sexual intimacy stops it is indicative of disconnection and alienation which if not dealt with could lead to seperation. so obviously as if there is a committed homosexual relationship, sexual relations should be encouraged for the health and well being of the relationship. healthy commited relationships are the main stay of society. its a win win solution. which in reality is the only kind that works.