Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

William February 25, 2012 at 11:00 pm

Again, the civil rights found in the 14th amendment (which itself is debated) is conditioned upon the rights of citizens, not privileges. What is more, it is not rights of lifestyle choices that are recognized (drug use, adultery, homosexuality, beastiality, lawyers, emo's, gangsters, etc.) but the rights of people regardless of race, gender, national origin, etc. (I.e. Those things outside of one's control...decreed).
So, unless they are able to find a biological basis for one's being homosexual, they do not fall under the protection of the 14th amendment any more than a polygamous Mormon.

Eric Crouse February 25, 2012 at 11:02 pm

Let it ride! Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington D.C., and Shelbyville. Ya know, for all the jokes about the South being the home of family member-on-family member sex... pretty much all of the hippy liberal states are on this list... and the majority of the redneckkiest states aren't. So ruminate on that. (Better than the conclusion of this list leading to you ruminating about your first cousin, right?)
(This according to 11points.com, but I found many other references that back this up, i just found this one humorous)

William February 25, 2012 at 11:11 pm

As for minding our own business, let me mention a point here. Let us claim that freedom is e right to wave my arms as far as I want as long as I don't touch you. That is, I can do what I want as long as I do not intrude upon your freedoms. Well, if a woman chooses to cover her body from head to toe, it doesn't effect me at all and yet so many are up in arms that she needs to be freed. On the other hand, a woman undresses and it has a direct effect upon me emotionally, chemically and biologically and yet no one says I deserve to be freed. It becomes my business when my freedom is infringed upon, when I am effected - so the dressed woman is free to cover and does not infringe upon my freedom. The half naked woman is free but her freedom trespasses upon me...the former is not my business, the later is.
My point - what homosexuals do in their homes is their business. When they force others to accept or legitimize their private behaviors it is no longer private and becomes a matter for the people...the business of the public. What is more, when one is viewed as wrong (legally) for not hiring or for firing due to this or for speaking out against such activities it is no longer a private matter but is now infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others- those who oppose such a lifestyle. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege as it can be denied or revoked by the state...just like a drivers license. If marriage is a right it should not be denied on any basis.

Eric Crouse February 25, 2012 at 11:23 pm

Please educate me on marriage being a privilege and even more so school me on where it has been revoked "just like a drivers license" And once again I ask you to please tell me when you decided to make the choice to be heterosexual??? Why are your private behaviors alowed to to be publis matter and not mine? If I owned my own company and chose not to hire you based on you being heterosexual, I would expect that action be taken so as not to infringe upon your rights or freedoms in regard to your lifestyle.

William February 25, 2012 at 11:24 pm

As for the choice to be heterosexual, I do indeed make a consciouse choice everyday on whether I make that information public, if I act upon it, etc. My sexuality is my own business and mine alone...it is not an issue to be legislated.
As for being born gay...I do not deny that some are born with imbalances of hormones. I do not deny that natures are actually corrupted from the way they are "supposed" to be. But I strongly feel that these deviations, these mutations that some are born with are due to the polutions and excesses in our society, the contamination of our food supply for profits, the chemicals put into almost everything we use on a daily basis and the general pollution of our environment. This however is a minority as most do indeed take upon themselves this lifestyle later in life (after 'experimenting'). I know several bisexuals and homosexuals that weren't upon this lifestyle until their twenties -again, often the outcome of other lifestyle choices such drugs, partying and loose sex lives) - and then claimed this is how they always were inside. It seems that most people upon the homosexual lifestyle chose it due to external circumstances rather than being born in this way. It has even become like a fad in the African American community in the last two or three years in Baltimore city. Another prominent cause is molestation but that is a bridge I will not touch upon as it tends to be too sensitive for many. So, choice or not...we still choose how we behave.

Eric Crouse February 25, 2012 at 11:26 pm

Further more if what you state above is true, then wouldn't paying taxes for things such as education for children I don't have be infringing upon my rights? I am not saying that this is the case in my view, but according to you it would be.

Paul Amirault February 25, 2012 at 11:28 pm

William, your quote - "My point - what homosexuals do in their homes is their business. When they force others to accept or legitimize their private behaviors it is no longer private and becomes a matter for the people..." has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not a matter of dispute or legitimization, it is the law of the land. What they, or you, do behind your bedroom doors between consenting adults is none of anybody's business. That is the law.
We disagree as to right or privilege when it comes to marriage.

C.W.S. February 26, 2012 at 12:14 am

William, I'd like to know why you think it is a choice??? You think people like being discrimated against, beaten up, made fun of, etc. sounds like a good way to "choose" to live. Well I "chose" to be heterosexual. Was married 16 yrs to a women. That marriage ended partly due to the fact that I was hiding and fighting who I really was. I was not heterosexual, I was pretending to be. Now I am happy in a way I didn't think was possible. I tried to be "traditional" "normal" as you would say and ened up going through allot of things I could of avoided if I had only been true to myself instead of what was "expected" of me. My biggest supporter is my Dad who will be sitting in the front row when I marry my male partner this year. Thank "god" there are allot of intelligent and educated people in the world that understand, love and respect "us" as the people we are. NOT A CHOICE!!!

William February 26, 2012 at 12:36 am

There are at least three reasons that a marriage may be voided in the state of Maryland...in which the marriage is invalid from the beginning. There is similalrly three reasons why a marriage may be voided later, even if they were viewed as valid at the time of marriage. The fact that these are laws on the books precludes a need for an actual case. By law, the state has the right to revoke a marriage license...a license, which is itself a formal permission! The fact one needs a license from the state negates that it is a right and is a clear demonstration of the fact that it is a privilege.
As for my private behaviors...they remain private, they are not public and you do not know whether I am a Mormon with several families, a pedophile, insestuous, a fornicator, adulterer, anything else. You do not know and what goes on in my home is not your business. I would expect that if a company doesn't want to hire me due to any reason it is their right and they should not be forced by law to hire or retain anyone ever...for any reason be it race, language, gender, sexuality or even style. If a company wants to discriminate then they should be able to...and in a democratic society the people have a right to discriminate against them as an organization. But this is just an extension of our discussion and not relevant to the topic of marriage itself.

Eric Crouse February 26, 2012 at 01:06 am

In my oppinion you are a hypocrite who speaks in pointless circles. I can only say that based on my life experiences and even within this thread that you are a minority in your way of thinking of which I am most grateful for. I do agree with you in that what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business and vice versa as well as who you are or wish to marry is none of my business with exception to being a pedophile, as if you are that is the business of all and actions should be taken to remove you from society where you can no longer cause harm to a defenseless child. That statement alone makes me realize that I am in no way dealing with a rational and perhaps even sane person. I also realize any hope for an inteligent discussion with you has long since passed and I can only apologize for thinking that it may have.

C.W.S. February 26, 2012 at 01:16 am

William, please go back and reread your post, they contradict which makes your post a waste of time to read. My post was directed at you but it seems you talk in circles so no need to reply, sorry for asking. That would be my fault for not reading more than one of your post.

William February 26, 2012 at 01:23 am

I have already mentioned about why people choose to live in ways that are detrimental to themselves...there is no need for me to redress it.
As for your own homosexuality, I would ask you when you realized this about yourself? Did you know it before you involved the unsuspecting female or did your realization come later? Did you consciously try to be normal and traditional or was it just being yourself until your discovery? As for you, your partner and your father...it is your business and I could care less who supports and who doesn't, it doesn't effect my feelings towards the legislation. Finally, there is a difference between respecting our fellow man and accepting legislation. I think it is an issue to be democratically voted upon at the ballets and not an issue for politicians and lobbyists to decide on behalf of a society. Disagreeing with you (or me) does not make one less intelligent, educated or understanding...it simply expresses a different point of view, perhaps even a different world view. It is very immature to label others due to their disagreements. If on the other hand one is belligerent or disrespectful, that is another matter - but disagreeing, argueing, struggling for their perspective in legislation...this does not speak of one's intelligence whether they are for or against this or another issue.

William February 26, 2012 at 01:27 am

Please lay out how I am speaking in circles. My positions clear from the start to the end. The state should not be legislating same sex marriage. If they allow this group to demand this privilege then why not permit it for others. It is my opinion it is a social deviance and is destructive to both the individual and society. That is my view, the only circular reasoning is that I continue to connect the dots.
I did begin using the semantics of the argument but chose to alter my terminology to construct the discussion in a sounder frame work...so though my terminology did change, my position and arguments have remained consistent throughout.

Eric Crouse February 26, 2012 at 01:44 am

Your dots are square William, and for me personally once you expressed pedophilia with being OK behind closed doors or being considered as an equal to my having the right to marry my partner and that is when I drew the opinion that you are not of sound mind and that it with no longer a matter of discussing and expressing different opinions. For the record I would like to mention if the powers that be did not step in as they did and it were put to vote back when, black people would still be subject to segregation, I'm guessing you would be fine with that.

William February 26, 2012 at 01:45 am

First of all, it doesn't surprise me that I have been insulted...being called a hypocrite kinda surprised me, but not your insulting me. My arguments are sound and the last refutation to such arguments tend to be personal attacks...no problem. But I would like to ask two questions. First, why do you use the term hypocrite? Secondly, how am I speaking in circles, unless by that you mean repeatedly stating my case...which is demanded when all the responses lead right back to the very basics of my position.
After this, a pedophile in our society is any adult who sleeps with a minor...versus one who sleeps with a pre-pubescent child. As for the later, I agree with you. As for the former, I totally disagree as there are plenty of 13, 14, 15, and 16 year olds that not only consent to sexual relations but fill the pregnancy wards of hospitals. If a 15 young woman wants to marry a 20 year old man who is responsible, so be it. Why not. So, perhaps we agree but the semantics are between us...or perhaps we disagree and you view teenagers as little children incapable of being spouses and parents even though so many date, have sex and produce children without the responsabilities to one another found in marriage. (just for the record, I am against all sexual relations outside of marriage.)

William February 26, 2012 at 01:45 am

As for the closing insult about the intelligent conversation...it is interesting to me that you would say this when you seem to be arguing from a personal position of feelings and emotions while I am looking at the matter from that of law and society. As I stated again and again, I think in our society the decision should be one left for the voters of a region and not dictated by so called representatives who are so often clearly only representing the issues of lobbyists. My position is one of true equality - if you give the privilege to some fringe, minority, lifestyle groups, why not others? And this move, again, in my opinion, is but one more descent in the fall of our once great nation...if anything goes, soon everything will go. So why do you say my conversation is unintellegent when I position my case in arguments and you position yours in what you want? You seem to think that disagreeing with you is unintelligent...that by itself is a sign of both immaturity and failure to bring an intelligent conversation one's self. You have demonstrated this by insulting rather than discussing the issues at hand, your positions and mine. And so I am left scratching my head wondering, why is it that the homosexual community expects me to change my position on the matter when they have no conversation to bring to the table?

Eric Crouse February 26, 2012 at 01:46 am

Further more you have yet to explain to me how my being married and it being recognized by the state let alone the federal government some day would in any way change the way you live.

C.W.S. February 26, 2012 at 01:52 am

LOL...I rest my case, your good enough your smart enough and gosh darn it people love you William. Night Night

Paul Amirault February 26, 2012 at 01:52 am

I guess when you cross Ron Paul with Michele Bachmann, you get William's point of view? Purely philosophically speaking between Ron Paul's business discrimination and Bachmann's fixin' duh Gays.

William February 26, 2012 at 01:57 am

Well, it is fine if the dots are square...as long as they connect.
As for pedophilia, I have two points to make about this issue. First, I have defined my position clearly about three minutes ago on your other comment. Secondly, I do equate true pedophelia with homosexuality - both of which I think are deviances that harm those involved and the greater society. And that is my position regardless of how you see it. I am sure there are pedophiles right now angry that I would equate them with homosexuals...because at least they (add whatever argument they may bring). Just because the pot calls the kettle black doesn't make it clean. As for civil rights and segregation, there is absolutely no correlation between the two -period. As for the powers that be stepping in, that in itself is a joke if one returns to history. It was the powers that be that enslaved people of color, it was the powers that be that established an institute of oppression based on race and it was the powers that be that fought to retain that system. Human beings are entitled to human rights without any bias based upon race, gender or national origin. Constitutional rights (which declare themselves to be God given and inalienable) are supposed to be universal to all living in the u.s. Regardless of race, gender or national origin. Marriage itself is not a constitutional right nor a human right but is a privilege licensed (permitted), registered and revokable by the state.

William February 26, 2012 at 02:00 am

I am not the issue here. And that is the biggest problem in these discussions...they are made personal when they are social. Still, I am fine with also wishing you a good night and ending it upon that.

William February 26, 2012 at 02:05 am

Stereo typing? Why can I not simply be an individual trying to discuss the current affairs issues that are effecting my community? Why can I not simply be a neighbor here in the state of womanly words and manly deeds who has an opinion that differs from yours? Why can I not simply be a neighbor who opposes the decisions made by people who are claiming to represent me but are acting in a way contrary to that? Why can I not be a fellow citizen of our over taxed state who wants major issues such as this to be voted upon democratically? I am an individual...not a stereo-type.
If you want to start using stereotypes I could have made this conversation rapidly decline downhill a long time ago...but that is not how discussions are supposed to be treated.

C.W.S. February 26, 2012 at 02:33 am

Why...because you should be institutionalized. That is just my opinion.

William February 26, 2012 at 03:08 am

Well, since saying ood night wasn't sufficient for you and you choose to continue upon a downward spiral, I will go ahead and join you...why not?
You know, people such as yourself used to be institutionalized, treated and even cured of what was once termed a mental disorder.

Buck Harmon February 26, 2012 at 03:19 am

Great position William, thanks for being real...
.C.W.S... quit before your entire foot is in your mouth... That is just my opinion.

C.W.S. February 26, 2012 at 03:44 am

You both make me smile.

Tim February 26, 2012 at 07:56 am

fun fact: Sodomy hasn't applied to consensual gay intercourse since 1998 (oral) and 1999 (anal, with consent) in the State of Maryland. (Williams v. Glendening 1998-99).
So welcome to 13 years ago.

Doug March 2, 2012 at 04:30 pm

I know it is off topic, but I didn't see a good place to comment on this. WTH (heck).. is up with Baltimore's mayor? Baltimore is already a haven for illegals... now she does this? Add this to her proposed tax increases, and she is starting to look as bad as O'Malley. Tax payers should be choking.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/02/baltimore-bars-police-from-immigration-enforcement/

hmj March 2, 2012 at 05:16 pm

What do you get when you join Senator Mikulski, a pitbull, and a grapefruit ? The new definition of marriage in Maryland.

Eric Crouse March 2, 2012 at 05:22 pm

What do you get when hmj spews lame comments, a French shower!!!