Hawaii gov. calls special session on ...

Hawaii gov. calls special session on gay marriage

There are 152 comments on the Bellingham Herald story from Sep 9, 2013, titled Hawaii gov. calls special session on gay marriage. In it, Bellingham Herald reports that:

If lawmakers pass a bill, Hawaii would join 13 U.S. states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Bellingham Herald.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#107 Sep 16, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, I would ignore religious belief as a protected class, in what way, shape or form is it even remotely related to the point that I am speaking about?
I am debating your statement on attraction and laws, forgive me, but how is religion even remotely related to that topic?.......
Because the majority of people who believe that gay people should not be allowed to legally marry base that on their personal religious beliefs. Not all, of course, but the vast majority.

Religion is intertwined into the debate, and has driven it form the start.

If you simply look at the pros and cons of same sex marriage, it's not hard to see what drives the argument. Even in court cases, where they anti-marriage folks were trying to come up with some non-religious reason to prevent SSM, they were unable to do so, and in some cases, freely admitted that SSM was not harmful to society, and was good for the couples and families involved.

That leaves only religious belief.

And another person's religion should not drive the civil rights and basic freedoms that those that don't share those beliefs should receive.

Thus a hundred court cases.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#108 Sep 16, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is all about gender and family. One man and one woman.
It is not a fundamental right. It is a legal right that applies only to couples that meet state requirements.
Nope, still wrong as usual.

The SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a fundament right at least 14 separate times.

State requirements must still meet federal constitutional muster.

State bans on same-sex couples marrying do NOT pass federal constitutional muster, violating both 5th & 14th amendment protections. The federal courts are about to rule that way shortly in the 13+ pending federal court cases.

It's only a matter of time before all state bans are ruled unconstitutional as was section 3 of DOMA.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#109 Sep 16, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<
Incest is illegal because it isn't healthy for a family to conduct themselves in that manner, it runs counter to what a family should be about. Sex with the underage is illegal because it's disgusting and repulsive. Other forms of sexual acts are illegal because they negatively effect society in one form or another and all examples are within the governments right to act because it's society gives it the right to do so.
IF the govt has a compelling interest; just like I said.

There is simply no compelling interest in the govt restricting the fundament right to marry just because the couple is of the same gender.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#110 Sep 16, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, I would ignore religious belief as a protected class, in what way, shape or form is it even remotely related to the point that I am speaking about?
I am debating your statement on attraction and laws, forgive me, but how is religion even remotely related to that topic? Unless the religion is stating that attraction should not be hindered then what is the point of bring it up? Why am I going to digress over a completely unrelated topic? it's like saying "hey, look at the orange painted dog that just walked in the room, why aren't you talking about that?"
<quoted text>
Again, forgive me, but in when did I say that sexual orientation is up to change? I only said that one cannot be born into a sexual orientation like physical characteristics of gender and race. Anyone who states otherwise is plainly wrong, unless you wish to share with me a peer review study titled "Nature vs Nurture resolved; Homosexuality At Birth Settles Long Standing Debate And It Is Nature!" I call nonsense.
When someone is born, does that mean they will grow up to be a killer? A powerful athlete? A towering intellect? A insane blabber? How about a mature mind? Patient? Impatient? Anger problems? Loving? Hateful? Hopeful? Depress?
When someone is born does that mean they will love the color blue? or green or red, maybe black with white dots? Does it mean that the music that they love is somehow locked up in their genetic code? Is their personality already predetermine from their first breath? or perhaps the moment full development in the womb? Hardly.
When someone is born will they become 7 feet tall later on in life from just being born? No...after they grown and become 7 feet tall can you change them to be 5 feet tall instead? Hardly. Genetic make up could help to add to the potential for high height, it doesn't mean that at the time of birth that is what is going to happen. I don't understand how you can equate that simple logic with something as illogical as "a person is born this way"
<quoted text>
So how does it feel to be the the scientific equivalent of a creepy dude sitting at the bus bench watching everyone going about their lives? I jest, I feel humor is needed here.
<quoted text>
Believe me I have no illusions if I understand in any deep way why people feel attracted to whatever they attracted to and neither does anyone in the science community when it comes to how people develop behaviors, it has always been a combination of factors, never just one.
<quoted text>
Thus the Nature side of the Nature vs Nurture Debate. Thus why it has always been the wisdom to say it's a combination of factors that lead to the development of personalities.
<quoted text>
Couldn't agree with you more. Which is why I am still puzzled why you still keep bringing it up.
I wasn't the one who brought it up. As usual, someone said sexual orientation is a choice and therefore not open to protection by the constitution.

I explained orientation is clearly not a choice and provided documentation to support my assertion. I further expanded to explain that while not a choice, the issue of choice is irrelevant, as choice is protected when it is a religious belief. Religion demonstrates choice of how you wish to live your life can be protected by law.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#111 Sep 16, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that I have already pointed out that compelling reason is within a society's right to define.
<quoted text>
I don't believe I am speaking about choice, perhaps that is what you want me to talk about. In either case, I totally agree with you.
<quoted text>
Again, I agree with you
<quoted text>
I am sorry to informed you on your misunderstanding of science. But sexual orientation is not in the same class as gender, race, ethnicity or other physical characteristic of a human being at birth for the simple fact that they are physical characteristics.
Sexual orientation is a behavior characteristic and unless you have some ground breaking study that puts to end the endless debate of nature vs nurture then you are plainly wrong. At best, it's a combination of the two, as with all explanations of human behavior.
Societies the world over had a number of sexual acts that were plainly homosexual in application, ancient Greece comes to mind as the most glaring of them. Perhaps you could explain how they rid themselves of the "gay gene?" (I honestly have no idea on what you might call being born gay, I am saying gene because that is my area of work.)
A person isn't born gay any more than a person is born a killer. Belief in such a thing borders on eugenics and as appealing that might be to you to tell yourself that people are born this way, I as a scientist, can tell you that you are simply wrong, the person became this way and they are this way now and they should embrace who they are. But don't attempt to pretend that they were born into it their behavior like physical traits of race or gender.
As part of our society, the courts will make the determination of whether there is a compelling govt interest in banning same-sex couples from marrying.

Sexual orientation isn't a behavior any more than being left-handed is a behavior. If I only had sex with women my entire life, I'd STILL be gay because my natural physical & emotional attraction is to members of the same gender.

You can pretend to be a scientist all you want.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#112 Sep 16, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, as I stated before, society decides what is compelling and legitimate and what can or cannot withstand review is only within those that decide what is compelling and legitimate, thus my entire debate has rested on your post that attraction is basis for that non-compelling and non-legitimate governmental interest.
<quoted text>
"Society" doesn't decide anything, because "society" isn't a singular entity but rather a collection of individuals. It is individuals WITHIN our society who make those decisions.

Specifically in this case it will be the SCOTUS who will decide whether there is a compelling govt interest in banning same-sex couples from marrying.

If other members of society disagree with that assessment and can get enough of their fellow members to agree, then they can change the constitution to reflect their beliefs.

"Society" doesn't decide anything; groups of individuals WITHIN a society make those decisions.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#113 Sep 16, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am asking you to defend your belief that because someone isn't in control of their attraction that is reason enough to not create laws the prohibit actions based on those attractions.
All other examples provided by my colleagues at the lab and myself in regards to other laws that restrict a person from being attracted period and acting on it a mere examples to that point to the fact the government can, do and will restrict if the society that supports it so desires it.
All examples of harm, informed consent...etc can be corrected with mere details that cover all potential problems. It stands to reason that in fact the only thing that is preventing all other sexual laws outside of rape and other forms of unwanted sexual acts from being removed base on the reasoning of no control over attraction is if the government believes that the laws are needed.
I really don't understand why the reasoning can't be kept solely in the realm of a person being in love with another and seeking all rights equal to others when they enter a social contract like marriage.
You twist my words to fit your objection. I never made the claim "because someone isn't in control of their attraction that is reason enough to not create laws the prohibit actions based on those attractions." I even tried to make it clear, behavior is a choice, even though sexual orientation is not. I also acknowledge behavior can be restricted if a compelling interest for the restriction can be demonstrated and withstand review. But restrictions can be challenged, and removed if it can be shown they are harmful without providing a compelling governmental interest. Gender has finally been shown to provide no compelling interest.

The reason love isn't a valid argument, no matter how compelling, is that love is not and has never been a requirement of law. It may help change hearts and minds, but it isn't a valid legal argument. Equal protection of the law as promised in the declaration and required by the 5th and 14th amendments, is a valid legal argument.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#114 Sep 16, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
I really don't understand why the reasoning can't be kept solely in the realm of a person being in love with another and seeking all rights equal to others when they enter a social contract like marriage.
Because the anti-gays keep claiming our right to marry can be restricted because we supposedly "choose" to be gay.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#115 Sep 16, 2013
You guys have gotten so good at this, your arguments so trimmed-down and clear, it gives me goosebumps.

It's thrilling. Really.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#117 Sep 16, 2013
More on choice:

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Clearly, choice can be protected (even though sexual orientation is not a choice).

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#118 Sep 16, 2013
Oh boy, you guys done it now, ignoring whole parts of his post when he put in the time to response to each of yours.

I am out of here before nerd rage hits.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#119 Sep 16, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
Oh boy, you guys done it now, ignoring whole parts of his post when he put in the time to response to each of yours.
I am out of here before nerd rage hits.
This is not a formal debate, and there is no set etiquette for posting on Topix. I respond to what I can, where I can, and within a short period of time. I try not to pull lines out of context, but go with the flow of the post I am responding to. If a poster remains respectful, I try to do the same. I don't always succeed.

But I don't have an hour to create a detailed point for point response to a two page post. Not with working full time, raising two kids, and maintaining house and property. I do this to learn things, to hone my responses to ignorance and bigotry, and for relaxation.

I don't do it to adhere to your personal posting rules.

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#120 Sep 17, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not a formal debate, and there is no set etiquette for posting on Topix. I respond to what I can, where I can, and within a short period of time. I try not to pull lines out of context, but go with the flow of the post I am responding to. If a poster remains respectful, I try to do the same. I don't always succeed.
But I don't have an hour to create a detailed point for point response to a two page post. Not with working full time, raising two kids, and maintaining house and property. I do this to learn things, to hone my responses to ignorance and bigotry, and for relaxation.
I don't do it to adhere to your personal posting rules.
O_O wow... amazing third degree there...I make fun of a nutjob and I get a lecture about cracking a joke about him.

You sir, are serious business. http://s.mlkshk.com/r/KGIT

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#121 Sep 17, 2013
LOOK! Somebody is lonely and bored, and want's the thread to become all about HIM.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#122 Sep 17, 2013
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
Being gay is a choice and you choose whether or not to act on your impulses.
.
A pastor in Florida wanted to burn Korans. It is his right as an American citizen to do so. Yet authorities have done everything they could to stop him, abridging his Constitutional rights.
.
This is regulation of a behavior as well.
.
Try to think things out a little.
We frown on murder too. There goes my freedom as a contract killer. Damned regulation of a behavior!

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#123 Sep 17, 2013
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
Being gay is a choice and you choose whether or not to act on your impulses.
.
A pastor in Florida wanted to burn Korans. It is his right as an American citizen to do so. Yet authorities have done everything they could to stop him, abridging his Constitutional rights.
.
This is regulation of a behavior as well.
.
Try to think things out a little.
When you assert that being gay is a choice, you imply that it is an attractive option. Stifling them darn impulses?

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#124 Sep 17, 2013
snyper wrote:
LOOK! Somebody is lonely and bored, and want's the thread to become all about HIM.
I know right? I can't tell you how insane this guy can get, Be Fair is a special kind of conservative being he isn't the nutso that ignore facts, science and common sense... No sir, he is the nutso that BELIEVES that he is using facts, science and common sense to make a point.

Quick, ask him about Obamacare and Hawaii's health care law and he will write your a 20,000 word essay in how wrong he is but looking quite smart while doing it.

Ah, conservatives wackjobs, more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#125 Sep 17, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
I know right? I can't tell you how insane this guy can get, Be Fair is a special kind of conservative being he isn't the nutso that ignore facts, science and common sense... No sir, he is the nutso that BELIEVES that he is using facts, science and common sense to make a point.
Quick, ask him about Obamacare and Hawaii's health care law and he will write your a 20,000 word essay in how wrong he is but looking quite smart while doing it.
Ah, conservatives wackjobs, more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Looks like he gave up here. Perhaps he realized he didn't have an argument.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#126 Sep 17, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
O_O wow... amazing third degree there...I make fun of a nutjob and I get a lecture about cracking a joke about him.
You sir, are serious business. http://s.mlkshk.com/r/KGIT
Sorry - misunderstood. Shows I'm not used to humor in these threads ....sigh ....there is a terminal lack of it.
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#127 Sep 24, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
Be Fair, you and I both go a ways back on Topix. I believe you should just let it go. You are in a same sex marriage board and the topic is going to continue to veer that way.
I can understand what you are saying. But what you read and believed to be said wasn't exactly what they meant to say.
It's pretty clear after reading their whole post from start to finish and the other forums that are covering what is going on in Hawaii, that Not Yet Equal was talking about one thing and closed with what really is just a signature paragraph that they post at the end of all their posts in same sex marriage forums.
Cut them a break and just let the issue go, I think you have beat them up enough over such a obvious, but little mistake in message deliverance. This is the internet after all.
As if I need your help in any shape or form. You are a Trolling liberal that insults others for your own amusement and never take into consideration any of the points that someone would intelligently present to any discussion.

Do us all a favor and take a long walk on a short cliff.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 2 min Yeah 3,026
News With Cruz out, social conservative leaders reth... 14 min Madam President 7
News Research: Saying 'I'm gay' doesn't boost well-b... 15 min RalphB 10
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 17 min Rainbow Kid 91
News Elephants perform for final time at Ringling Bros. 33 min Stone 49
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 41 min Tequila 340
News In this undated photo provided by Lenka Drstako... 43 min Rainbow Kid 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 34,769
More from around the web