Legalizing same-sex marriage is sensible

So, you are advocating that we sell our souls for an economic gain that really only benefits 1-3% of the population (the homosexual portion)? Why would a strong society follow a path that has been historically proven to lead that society to ruin ( ie. Rome, Greece etc.).

I for one, do not want to sacrifice all that this Country has developed for a fleeting economic increase. It is time for us to act properly and NOT agree to this. The family (marriage between one man and one woman) is what has driven society until now. Let us continue along this path so that we do not fall into the deceitful clutches of satan.

Uhh...sensible? It's sick is what it is. Where does it stop? Can I marry my cousins or my dog or cat? If this kind of silliness passes, where does it stop? SICK-O's!

Stephen is right. Stick to writing business articles. Not a shock though that a Sun reporter would feel this way.

First of all, this should be an op ed piece and probably shouldn't be written by a columnist - particularly a financial columnist. Gay marriage is a hugely controversial issue and quips like "Nobody chooses to be gay" and "intelligent, creative people of any sexual orientation are more likely to feel comfortable in places that foster tolerance" are highly debatable and should not be put forth as fact in a medium that should be unbiased. This article is something I would expect to see in the Blade, not the Sun. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be shocked at all. Cancel my subscription.

I have read your columns for many years, but I have never commented on them before today. Thank you sincerely for this article, and most importantly your statement that "nobody chooses to be gay." I have four sons, and they are all different and one is gay. I have learned so much from him about homosexuality, and I would guess that you also know someone close to you that is gay. Articles like yours will help the older generations understand the need for gay rights. My son is in college, and that generation is much more willing to accept homosexuality. I tried to rate your column with 5 stars, but somehow it took one star.

Jinx wrote:

Uhh...sensible? It's sick is what it is. Where does it stop? Can I marry my cousins or my dog or cat? If this kind of silliness passes, where does it stop? SICK-O's!

Actually, in about half of the states in the US, you CAN marry your cousin.

Marriage is a contract that two parties enter into voluntarily. Your cat, as far as I know, can't voluntarily enter into a contract.

Try some better arguments.

Todd, maybe "nobody chooses to be gay" isn't a quip. If you're not gay, how would you know? For that matter, how do you think Jay knows? As for Jay's "quip" about places that foster tolerance, I suggest it's not just creative people, it's EVERYONE who would feel more comfortable. You apparently ignored or didn't consider the paragraph about Jews in Spain. I bet they felt pretty uncomfortable knowing their choices in 1492 in their own country were convert, leave, or be executed. I bet you are a member of the group that would have felt more comfortable had the Romans been a little more tolerant and didn't throw your ancestors to the lions.

Here is a simpler way to put it Stephen, Jinx and 'What':

If you don't think you can change your sexual orientation, what makes you think I can change mine?

As a gay man, I have to say Hancock's column is a bit condescending. Here we have a "reverse" form of stereotype, which depicts gay men (truthfully, he's not talking about lesbians here) as artistic, creative and hard working. I only wish! It would make dating much more enjoyable. Unfortunately, gay men, like straight men, come in all forms. Some are ignorant and clumsly, others are artistic and intelligent. But to use the latter strereotype as justification to legalize same-sex marriage is as absurd as suggesting Jews be herded up for the camps because they are all "communists" as Hitler believed. Multiculturalism is just the flip side of fascism. Different side, but same coin. Gay marriage should be legalized simply because it's an INDIVIDUAL right, not a gay right. It's about individual liberty in this country, and I wish we would remember that.

Oh, and I will add that places that foster "tolerance," such as San Francisco or Massachusetts, are actually rather intolerant when it comes to ideology. Try being a Log Cabin Republican, or to even stand up for the values of American individual liberty, in a coffee shop in downtown Boston. You will get chased out like vermin. The "liberal" crowd is about as tolerant these days as Right Wing religious nuts.

My saying to most of you who negatively commented on here, "thou doest protest too much". EVERYONE is entitled to equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that inter-racial marriages were against the law and that was overturned. What goes on in the privacy of your home is your own business. And using a quote from an episode of Oprah, "If gay people could turn purple for just 1 day, to stand out, you would be very surprised who you deal with on a daily basis." If you're a homophobe, that's your business. Gays do not tell you how to live your life and heterosexuals should not tell gays how to live their lives. It's a matter of mutual respect. And until everyone respects each other's lives, however they may live it, we will never be able to live in peace. And I'm not talking about criminal activity. The sooner everyone stops judging others and leave that up to God or whatever higher power you believe in, the better off our society would be. The bottom line is, you wouldn't want anyone prying into your personal business, stay out of ours.

I agree, this should have been an op-ed piece in the Village Voice, not a Sun article from a business reporter. Like other readers, I am not surprised that this was penned by a Sun columnist, as this paper has completely lost its objectivity, instead becoming a beacon for leftists. Gay marriage is a highly divisive topic, and as such, many points presented as fact in this article are factual only to gays and their sympathizers. Gay marriage is sick to many of us, and presenting it as an economic panacea is shameful!

Mario wrote:

... Here we have a "reverse" form of stereotype, which depicts gay men (truthfully, he's not talking about lesbians here) as artistic, creative and hard working...

Mario, I think you may have mis-read the article. The writer is not suggesting that gays ARE the artists, writers, etc. The writer suggests that tolerance towards gays indicates a more tolerant environment and thus attracts creative types. Those creative types could be gay, straight, bi, whatever.

Do a web search for "The Rise of the Creative Class" and you'll find the reference.

I'll include the link though I'm not sure it will appear in my comment - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/200...

Mr. Hancock, do you or any of the other supporters of this confusion, which God calls' "an abomination", have biblical reference for your position? If you do not claim to be God fearing then ignore this question, but if you do then let us have at it.

JBT wrote:

I agree, this should have been an op-ed piece in the Village Voice, not a Sun article from a business reporter. Like other readers, I am not surprised that this was penned by a Sun columnist, as this paper has completely lost its objectivity, instead becoming a beacon for leftists. Gay marriage is a highly divisive topic, and as such, many points presented as fact in this article are factual only to gays and their sympathizers. Gay marriage is sick to many of us, and presenting it as an economic panacea is shameful!

The irony of your comment is priceless. I wonder how objective your beliefs about gay marriage and it's presentation in this article are?

It is both funny and sad that this sentiment: "Societies that are tolerant, free and diverse tend to be richer and happier than societies that aren't. Maryland has shown this for decades" seemingly angers, oh let's call them, a "certain segment" of the Sun readership.

There is nothing controversial about this piece. As long as you are a rational, thinking adult.

I stridently disagree with this editorial.

"And don't be surprised if they bring economic dividends."

So money is more important than values? Good to hear that you're at least willing to admit your driven by money and nothing else.

"Nobody chooses to be gay. But by approving gay marriage, Maryland can choose to improve its record of equal opportunity for everybody, which is the only way to run an economy."

Typical liberal drivel. Every homosexual chooses to be gay, just as every adulterer has the self-control and choice no matter how much his baser nature wants to sleep with another man's wife. God wouldn't condemn something that they have no choice over.

Maryland should respect the will of the voters and if they feel this strongly about it, they should put it the voters to have them weigh in on it.

Steve wrote:

Typical liberal drivel. Every homosexual chooses to be gay, just as every adulterer has the self-control and choice no matter how much his baser nature wants to sleep with another man's wife. God wouldn't condemn something that they have no choice over.
Maryland should respect the will of the voters and if they feel this strongly about it, they should put it the voters to have them weigh in on it.

There, you are wrong. There have been studies conducted that shows homosexuality is not "chosen". You're born that way, the same way an adulterer is born that way. The same way you were born to be heterosexual. Did YOU choose to be heterosexual? No. You were born that way. Could you choose to be gay instead? No, you could not. Until you live the life of a homosexual, you know nothing about it.

The Gays Are Sinners discussion is nothing but a distraction.

If people were able to get past the fact that the topic is related to gay people, then maybe there would actually be a discussion about the underlying hypothesis.

It would seem like other relevant topics or questions would be:

Does diversity and tolerance promote economic health/wealth? Does economic health/wealth promote happiness? If so, what would diversity and tolerance look like? What should it look like? How does morality relate to economic development and prosperity?

Of course, it's just easier to say "Gays are bad!" or "Gays are sinners!" or whatever people use as a way of shutting down intelligent and thoughtful conversation.

"Every homosexual chooses to be gay, just as every adulterer has the self-control and choice ..."

If this is the case, then what you mean to say is every MAN choose to be either gay or straight. if you choose to be gay, then you can be just as easily straigth. I think this is the crux of anti-homosxual sentiment among conservatives. They fear that if homosexuality is widely accepted, then they too will have to face that difficult choice, and they aren't too sure which way they'd choose. Please keep your God and your mental issues out of my personal life. If you want to live in a theoracy, move to Iran.