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 ...
Take it up with dictionary.reference.com I am using their meaning for the word "monogamous": "The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monogamous&db=*
Sir Francis Dashwood: No you did not, you said this:
Morality is shades of gray.
Actually, in my post 139 I also stated: "Morality is a subjective concept that has been argued over since the dawn of humanity, on the other hand logic in 'cause and effect' is as hard as concrete."
You cannot even keep your attacks straight.
I guess you cannot accept the true meaning of the word "monogamous".
I am asking reasons for a person's position on something in a calm, polite manner and no one seems to want to answer my question. How else besides divorse, child support laws, feminism and cheating on their sponse, can the institution of marraige be threatened between a man and woman than to be prevented from them getting married.
Monogamous means two of different genders dedicated exclusively as mates. Homosexuals cannot mate, they have no potential to breed with each other at all.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Actually, in my post 139 I also stated...
Another equivocation. What you stated is unlearned ignorance of literature, philosophy, mythology and/or theology.
Morality is rooted entirely in the presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior. It is no different than the pantheons of pagan gods and stone idols in primitive civilizations.
Morality does not exist, it is an esoteric hobgoblin, a phantasm that has no substance.
No, "monogamous" means, "The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.": http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monogamous&db=*
I don't see the word "gender" anywhere in dictionary.reference.com meanings of the noun word "monogamous".
Haven't you ever seen a dog hump a leg?
Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Marriage exists to give a stable framework within which the human species can reproduce and rear children to adulthood. So calling a homosexual coupling a "marriage" is worse than illogical. It is stupid and insulting.
Your question is akin to asking, "If I call a rat a bird, how does that prevent you from calling an osprey a bird?"
It doesn't. But it doesn't prove whatever pathetic point you seem to think it proves, either.
Pure idiocy.
"Homosexuals" (which is a misnomer to start with) never have "sex," they are deviants who have perverted relations.
Sex requires a penis and vagina. Monogamy requires a male and female, so does procreation...
But since you are so ignorant of biology, I will make it simple:
Man + woman = baby... mono-gamos
Man + 2 women = babies... poly-gamos
See, that is not so hard... “gamos,” from the latin, also denotes fertility, something homosexuals never have. Their relationship is sterile and perverse, producing nothing at all.
I applaud your calm politeness. Just throw a little logic in there and you got it made.
How else besides divorse, child support laws, feminism and cheating on their sponse, can the institution of marraige be threatened between a man and woman than to be prevented from them getting married.
Whatever.
now they are saying "sex" equals "sexual behavior"
The left is burring themselves by grossing out the 98% of the normal population.
Thank you.
Just throw a little logic in there and you got it made.
I did state my reasoning for my opinions, it's sad that you do not understand the logic I have stated.
Actually - I have been having ISP problems. I will respond to anything still 'active' when I get my internet connection issues resolved.
;-)
Good luck with that, I usually find that ISP problems are solved by reseting the at-home router/internet modem.
Yes -my understanding is that I will in essence be second string pinger for the homosexual agenda ping list. I have been having internet issue the last 3 or 4 days problems getting online. It seems the problems are resolved now...
Got it! I saw on another thread that DBeers was having trouble with his internet connection.
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.