Gay 'marriage' ban struck

The Washington Times ^ | January 21, 2006 | S. A. Miller

[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.

[DBeers]

Logic is black and white/good and evil. Morality is shades of gray.

See post# 140. LOL you can read it logically if you want to.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Homosexual monogamy is not logical

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.

[bigsigh]

I think you are anti freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happeness. These things are not subject to majority whim or vote, they are inherent.

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.

[Paul C. Jesup]

DBeers: I think you are on a thread about homosexual 'marriage' and objectively you are advocating for homosexual 'marriage' -one aspect of the homosexualization of society... All your other moral relative arguments are flawed and quite transparent...

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.

[bigsigh]

Before the night is over, we'll be charged with supporting child molesting, shoplifting, and spitting in public.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

if more homosexuals were monogamist

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...

[DBeers]

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.

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).

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You're debating a guy who believes that a homosexual cannot produce a child.

Only heterosexuals produce children. You are a sick pervert like Michael Jackson. You advocate deviancy with and mutilation of natural mammalian biological processes...

[DBeers]

I think you are anti freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happeness. These things are not subject to majority whim or vote, they are inherent.

Refer to post# 147.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Homosexuals cannot be monogamous, the word denotes a biological procreation they are not cpable of in any fashion with each other

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.

[bigsigh]

DB you have to bring a stonger argument other than that two long-term freepers are anti-FR and we can't debate gay marriage because that makes us all of a sudden liberal.

I have asked you about your position being anti freedom etc. What is your response to that?

[bigsigh]

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?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Morality is shades of gray.

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.

[bigsigh]

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?

[Paul C. Jesup]

FR is not a liberal debating society regardless the logic one might employ in the debate (reference my post# 112 to you

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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You need to go look up a the meaning to "monogamous" because you are wrong.

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...

[Barnacle]

Would someone please explain to me how the 'gay marriage' movement would prevent a man and woman from getting married?

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.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Morality is rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior...

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.

[McGavin999]

Of all the people my wife and I knew in college 25 years ago the only couple besides ourselves who are still together are gay. I simply respect their ability to work through a relationship whereas many other couples have done been able to.

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"?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Well the reason stated that people are against 'gay marriage' is because it threatens the institution of the marriage between a man and a woman.

So I asked the question of how the 'gay marriage' movement prevents a man and woman from getting married.