Posted on 01/21/2006 8:23:11 PM PST by MediaAnalyst
BALTIMORE -- A Circuit Court judge yesterday ruled that Maryland's 33-year-old ban on same-sex "marriage" is unconstitutional.
- snip -
"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this constitutional challenge," Judge Murdock said in her 22-page ruling. The law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman violates the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees "equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex," the judge said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
See post# 140. LOL you can read it logically if you want to.
From a health point of view, your above statement is insane in that if more homosexuals were monogamist the effect would be the stop of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases for the most part.
You cite the homosexualization of society as if they were'nt always around. I guess they should stay in the back of the bus or is that still the closet? And the slaves and women should have kept their place. Damn, I miss the good old days down home.
This is a simple issue, but as long as you want to fight homos, others will point out the wrong headedness of what you support.
If you want to fight NAMBLA give me a post, but if you want to deny taxpaying adults then count me out.
If you want to poke holes in my opinions, go ahead, but so far you have done no such thing. All you have done is make broad/grand statements with no reasoning, nor examples given for your statements.
Before the night is over, we'll be charged with supporting child molesting, shoplifting, and spitting in public.
Homosexuals cannot be monogamous, the word denotes a biological procreation they are not cpable of in any fashion with each other... Monogamy requires a potential for procreation... homosexuals have none at all...
Actually I remain on topic -I oppose homosexual 'marriage' and really I do not have to justify this position logically or any other way for that matter. On FR, the issue (homosexualization of society) is not debated. FR is not a liberal debating society regardless the logic one might employ in the debate (reference my post# 112 to you).
Only heterosexuals produce children. You are a sick pervert like Michael Jackson. You advocate deviancy with and mutilation of natural mammalian biological processes...
Refer to post# 147.
You need to go look up a the meaning to "monogamous" because you are wrong.
monogamous: "The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monogamous&db=*
Homosexuals can be "monogamous" after all.
I have asked you about your position being anti freedom etc. What is your response to that?
I read your 147, that's why I posted again. Is that your position, we're really liberals and don't belong here because it's anti-conservative to believe in freedom and pursuit of happeness?
Illogical.
Morality is rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior...
Categorical logic proves this, as did Socrates in Plato's Euthyphro.
We seem stuck in the gay marriage is immoral corner. Does this mean we're to believe we should vote on all moral issues and impose the majority view on the rest of the country?
I think Rush put is best when he stated that conservatives are logical and liberals are emotional.
You may not like what I have stated, but my statements were made in a sound, rational, logical and polite manner.
You sir have shown that you really have nothing more constructive to say on the issue and instead you have taken to use the FR FAQ as justification that I did not have a right to state my opinions. You're like a lawyer who is trying to find a loophole because you are losing a court case. That is very low of you.
Homosexuals can be "monogamous" after all.
You are looking in the wrong dictionary.
You need to go to the original latin root word gamos (in medical terminology), which denotes reproduction - - gametes of opposite gender...
Two males cannot be sexual partners, they cannot have coitus. But since you are so intent on your fetish, have at it, hope you catch something...
Who said, that perverted movement would "prevent a man and woman from getting married"?
A very transparent attempt on your party to confuse the argument through the use of a straw-man.
Nope. Most fanatics and some of the most evil people in the world believe that they are 'moral' and 'right'. That is why I stated that 'morality' is subjective in that it individually deals with each person's own 'moral' code of right and wrong.
Now logic on the other hand is clearly definable and as such more safer to use in one's personal judgement.
Great, then there is no need for "marriage" for them. They have obviously gone to a lawyer, have contracts to protect each other in the event of their deaths, what further need to they have for "marriage"?
So I asked the question of how the 'gay marriage' movement prevents a man and woman from getting married.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.