Renew debate over rights of same-sex partners

[Purple Gecko]

different strokes for different folks

[hmmmm]

Ikaika wrote:

You, like kira_girl and many others here, are an ignorant person. And this is exactly the reason why our justices are charged to make decisions like these without the approval of the majority -- because people like you absolutely cannot be trusted to make them fairly and intelligently.

Seig Heil! Hawaii uber alles!

Thanks for calling people names and bad mouthing them when they don't agree with you.
I assume from your post that you can be trusted to make decisions fairly and intelligently, like your post.

[Tony C]

Italiano Brah wrote:

It is a very sad day when man decides that marriage with the same gender is alright.
The well-known Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah reveals God’s feelings about homosexuality. Our Creator established rules governing marriage long before governments began regulating the institution. The opening book of the Bible tells us:“A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words,“connotes one who is a female human being.” Jesus confirmed that those yoked together in marriage should be “male and female.

If you think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about gay people, then you are a biblical novice.

Go read it again, without any preconceived notions. You're wrong. Pray for God to open your eyes.

When a man marries another man, at least in my case, the day was blessed, glorious, joyful, designed by God and enthusiastically supported by all our family and friends.

What is sad is when another man (you) feels compelled to ignore how rude he is being to make comments about our marriage, borne of ignorance.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Tony C]

Inquring Minds wrote:

Another example of Unelected officials (Actives Judges) who "LEGISLATE" from the BENCH! It seems like they know exactly what the people need! Overriding the will of the people! Too much power is given to the Judicial Branch!

It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the third branch of government to act in the interest of those of us who are marginalized by the other two. That is our remedy, and it is working as it should. That's why we have 3 branches of government - checks and balances. Educate yourself.

[Tony C]

steve wrote:

Californians had already voted to forbid same sex marriage (aka bilious queerieness), but as has been the case, politicians and hand wringing liberal judges merely ignore the will of the people. Freedom is slipping away.

When the will of the people is wrong, it must be corrected.

To wit: slavery, right to vote, etc.

The minority is to be protected from the whim of the majority.

Be careful, you might not always be the majority.

Use your head.

[Tony C]

Brother Love wrote:

look if the gays want to get married then fine, but you wont do it here in hawaii. i am proud to be part of the 69% against it. california is so screwed up as well, its not like you would want to follow their actions.

Oh it will be in Hawaii, too, eventually. It will be everywhere because that is right, fair, and equal.

You sound a lot like the racists who didn't want desegregation of schools in THEIR neighborhoods.

Get help.

[Tony C]

sli wrote:

What I want to know is where the hard lines are drawn. If gay marriage is legalized than what forms of perversion are prohibited? Is adult-child sex ok? Rape? Where does society draw the line?
More and more, we are hearing that what we used to regard as perverted or even criminal is the result of genes or upbringing or environment. So where does free will come in? Is it ok for me to murder my neighbor because it is natural to be pissed off? When do people return to taking responsibility for their actions?

This is a very, very simple question to answer. Why don't you give it the old college try before we have to explain it to you?

If you can't figure it out, there's something wrong with the way your brain works.

[Tony C]

kira_girl wrote:

In all Fairness: I don't know where you've been but in Hawaii, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. You may not agree with it but the people of Hawaii have spoken, as mentioned. Most of our laws are based on morality. You cannot kill someone because we the people said so. You cannot have more than two wives or husbands because we the people said so. However, none of us have spoken about traffic signals because that is not a moral law but instead, a regulatory one. Here in America, our moral laws may not be the same as another country but when in America, everyone should follow American laws. If not, they should go back to where they came from! KG

No, the reason for the laws is not because "we the people said so." Are you serious with that?

The reason for the laws is because the consequences of those actions infringe on the rights of others and/or cause harm.

"We the people" can't make up laws for no reason.

And there is no reason, legal or logical, to interfere in the marriage of gay couples, or to not recognize that which will exist either way.

By the way, if we wanted to change the laws in Hawaii, how hard could it be? It's a tiny state. If a whole bunch of gay people moved there for one election cycle, well then I guess you won't have the majority anymore. Not as far-fetched as it might sound.

[Tony C]

Honolulu wrote:

I have no problem with gay couples having the same benefits as married couples. I don't think society, however, is ready to accept gay couples as "married".

Well they're going to have to get ready, because my equality is more important than their discomfort.

[Tony C]

Brother Love wrote:

ben you can twist it, spin it, flip it, or whatever but it is not gonna fly now and in the future. i am kind of offended by your statement which claims that it would be better for everyone. that is not true and you know it.
if my child turned gay (and i dont believe you are born gay thats a cop out)i would love them unconditionally but i would be disappointed in them as well and they would know it too..

Oh for the love of God and the sake of your kids, educate yourself.

[Ikaika]

hmmmm wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for calling people names and bad mouthing them when they don't agree with you.

That was not childish name-calling nor bad-mouthing -- it was calling a spade a spade. I absolutely will not refrain from calling out dangerous, hateful people as willfully ignorant when they demonstrate themselves to be such.

Again, your comment is another completely invalid and purposefully deceptive fallacy, the ad hominem argument. You attack and cast doubt on the nature of my person rather than addressing the substance of my argument.

hmmmm wrote:

<quoted text>
I assume from your post that you can be trusted to make decisions fairly and intelligently, like your post.

Why would you assume that? I said no such thing. In fact, you clearly did not comprehend the essence of my argument. The common person cannot be trusted to be unbiased enough to make overarching legal decisions, as evidenced here by the tenuous grasp displayed by many on government and the law, and thus we have judges.

[stay in FL]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
Well they're going to have to get ready, because my equality is more important than their discomfort.

No it isn't. This is why people are turned off.
You are forcing things down people's throats and they don't like it.
When the majority votes for something, they get disgusted when activist judges overturn what they want.

[Tony C]

stay in FL wrote:

<quoted text>
No it isn't. This is why people are turned off.
You are forcing things down people's throats and they don't like it.
When the majority votes for something, they get disgusted when activist judges overturn what they want.

Why should I have to care if you're turned off?

You don't have to worry if your marriage turns anyone off. You can be swingers and your marriage will still be on the books.

This is America - I don't have to care what you think. Your rights stop at my nose. The law has been ignored for too long in this area. You have no right or business getting involved in my marriage.

You don't have to like it. You just have to deal with the fact that it exists.

[hmmmm]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
This is America - I don't have to care what you think. Your rights stop at my nose.

Why do people insist on this fallacy? My rights don't stop when they get to you, just as yours don't stop when they get to me. They both coexist. We both have the ability to go somewhere else if we don't like something...or we could try to work it out so that we are both happy.
You are correct in saying that your marriage is no business of mine. I don't think the government should be involved either. The whole marriage thing is a religious institution that the government got dragged into.
The government should issue civil union certificates for those who want them, and laws should be passed to protect all the rights (the same rights married couples have) of those who get those certificates.
If you want a marriage certificate, go find a church that will grant you one. As a hetero, I would opt for a civil union certificate, cause I'm not a big fan of organized religion.

[Purple Gecko]

maybe can legislate human nature.

maybe no can.

[apple]

Everyone keeps saying the people of Hawaii have spoken...that was more than 10 years ago and the world has changed a lot. I would like to see what Hawaii thinks these days

[midnight rambler]

Brother Love wrote:

i am kind of offended by your statement which claims that it would be better for everyone. that is not true and you know it.

So please enlighten me on how it would be worse for me, as a straight guy. Because as I see it, it would help my gay friends and have zero effect on me or any other straight person.

Brother Love wrote:

if my child turned gay (and i dont believe you are born gay thats a cop out)i would love them unconditionally but i would be disappointed in them as well and they would know it too..

That doesn't sound much like unconditional love to me. But on the first part, I'm curious: when did you choose to be straight (I'm assuming you are)? Because I didn't, it's just my natural reaction that I get turned on by women and not men. Of course, I've always found it interesting that almost all the political gay sex scandals are among married conservatives who were often loudly against gay rights. Perhaps not a coincidence, and they "made a choice" to be heterosexual?

[Tony C]

midnight rambler wrote:

<quoted text>
So please enlighten me on how it would be worse for me, as a straight guy. Because as I see it, it would help my gay friends and have zero effect on me or any other straight person.
<quoted text>
That doesn't sound much like unconditional love to me. But on the first part, I'm curious: when did you choose to be straight (I'm assuming you are)? Because I didn't, it's just my natural reaction that I get turned on by women and not men. Of course, I've always found it interesting that almost all the political gay sex scandals are among married conservatives who were often loudly against gay rights. Perhaps not a coincidence, and they "made a choice" to be heterosexual?

Finally - honesty - thank you!