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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#87 Sep 15, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
If you wish to restrict the fundamental right of marriage based on gender......
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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#88 Sep 15, 2013
Do you really want to defend the restrictions on incest, child abuse, informed consent, and number?

They are all different restrictions, and have nothing to do with the irrational restriction on gender.

But they have each been challenged in court, and shown to provide needed protections. The gender restriction fails that test of logic, science, and law.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#89 Sep 15, 2013
Correction...

Do you really want me to defend the restrictions on incest, child abuse, informed consent, and number?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#90 Sep 15, 2013
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”

14 times so far, the Supreme Court has affirmed marriage as a fundamental right of all persons, protected by the constitution.

They have also ruled, denial of that right on the basis of gender violates the 5th amendment requirement of equal protection.
Be Fair

Mililani, HI

#91 Sep 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
-Harm is defined as physical, emotional, psychological, etc for the parties directly involved. It does not include outside observers.
Oh, so clearly the person having a heart attack isn't feeling any pain what so ever? Perhaps when a person walks in and see's their partner that they had emotional exclusive bond with in a sexual act with another person, clearly they are not enduring emotional or psychological harm when they leave the room in tears because they are not the ones in the bed?

Perhaps a more grueling example in the form of public killings, surely a third party person feels no psychological when witnessing such an act because they aren't the ones that are committing the act or the one having the act done to them?

Maybe people that are outraged over anything that is not directly part of their lives, like in India with the gang raping, Have no right to be upset by your definition? They aren't the ones that was raped or committed the act, why are they upset?
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> -Informed consent requires the emotional & psychological capacity to comprehend the consequences of your actions. Children, those with diminished mental capacities, etc are unable to give informed consent. That's why children are unable to make legal contracts in most cases; they are legally unable to give informed consent.
I know quite a few children in my MENSA meetings that could tell you in great detail and understanding point by point what is in a legal contract, I could show you people that were labelled with mental disability that bars them from signing paper work that can show complete intelligent understanding in what is in a legal document. I can also show you a large group of adults that lack even the basic understanding of what is in a legal document. Which if you really think about it, is most of the population, seeing that they really need a lawyer to translate most contracts.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> -Incest involves the same issues of informed consent due to probable undue influence of one party over another because of their existing relationship; i.e. parent over child, male sibling over female sibling.
Something that can be easily remedied with a little oversight no? visit to the doctors and psychologist to ensure that the feelings are mutual and not influenced? perhaps a picture ID card?
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> So YES, actions may be restricted if they harm others.
Yes, actions can be restricted, only if a society deems it, and rightfully so. Because if it was as simple as attraction which has been my point this whole time. Then the allowing of something is merely in the details.

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.
Be Fair

Mililani, HI

#92 Sep 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't be infringed "WITHOUT A COMPELLING REASON".
I believe that I have already pointed out that compelling reason is within a society's right to define.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> The only reason the "choice" issue comes up is because the anti-gays use their incorrect belief that because homosexuality is a choice no rights can be based on that choice. Of course they conveniently ignore that religion is clearly a choice and people have a right to freely practice their religion.
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.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> Again, whether it's a choice or not can't be the SOLE reason for denying a right.
Again, I agree with you
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> And when a person has no choice in the matter- i.e. sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnicity, etc- then the govt must have a "COMPELLING REASON" to restrict any rights based on that classification.
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.
Be Fair

Mililani, HI

#93 Sep 15, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand my point. I never claimed: " governments can't create laws because of whom or what someone is attracted to".
My claim is again: "If you wish to restrict the fundamental right of marriage based on gender, you need to provide a compelling, legitimate government interest sufficient for that restriction."
Again debate and court trials over the last 40 plus years have made it clear, gender provides no such compelling governmental interest."
I can't help but feel you are simply repeating yourself on marriage when I have already made clear my disagreement with you is not about marriage but laws. If you didn't say or intend to say that attraction is the reason why laws can't be made to restrict it, then why even include your first two paragraphs of your post with the third?

If you are trying to make a point of lack of control of attraction why even bring up marriage? if you are talking about rights to marriage then why even bring up lack of control of attraction? Is it my fault that you spoke of both in your post?
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text> Marriage restrictions based on age, informed consent, incest, and number, all have been shown to provide their own compelling interests in protecting others. Gender has failed that test of reason, science, and law.
Ah, compelling to whom? society decides what is compelling or not. There have been hundreds of years of compelling scientific reasons to ban things or allow things at the time they were banned or allowed that don't stand up to today's standard's on what is compelling.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text> Other things you may think of that harm others, can be excluded based on the harm it causes to others.
I believe that We The Sheeple's definition makes it clear that harm to others isn't reason to ban something, only if it harms those directly effected.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text> Use here of the term "sexual orientation", refers to an adult, enduring romantic as well as physical attraction to a person of the opposite gender, the same gender, or both. We are not talking about fetishes or any behaviors that harm others, but only the enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and physical attraction to other adults.
Then I guess a person can't have a sexual orientation until they reach adulthood? I suppose kids that are bullied in school for being gay aren't really gay, thus they can't file a complaint for being bullied for being gay, but just for being bullied on a false notion that they have developed their sexual orientation when it's clearly only done so after they reach adulthood.
Be Fair

Mililani, HI

#94 Sep 15, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The false claim that being gay was a behavior, and therefore could rightly be restricted, had been made.
I responded by providing documentation that sexual orientation is not a behavior, but an enduring pattern of emotional as well as physical attraction, and that enduring pattern of attraction is not a choice. Acting on it is.
Ah, this is the crust of the confusion. If the point that you were making was if sexual orientation isn't a behavior (which it is, a behavior) then why include government law making abilities in your third paragraph if your point was to respond to someone saying that choice or not is a good reason to create laws banning something?

Why not simply response with your belief on sexual orientation, why include a totally unrelated paragraph on law making?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#95 Sep 15, 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.
You continue to ignore, choice of religious belief is a protected class. Clearly, religious belief is not a born characteristic. Whether you accept the science that shows sexual orientation is not open to change or not, gender still fails as a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right.

As a social scientist, can assure you, you don't know why some people are only attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both. Yet we have evidence that some combination of genetic and biological factors play an important role. But again, it is irrelevant when it comes to treating all persons equally under the laws currently in effect.
Be Fair

Mililani, HI

#96 Sep 15, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Be Fair (cont>)
The claim that being gay was a behavior, and therefore could rightly be restricted, had been made.
I responded by providing evidence that sexual orientation is not a behavior, but an enduring pattern of emotional as well as physical attraction, and that enduring pattern of attraction is not a choice. Acting on it is.
-
Not Yet Equal wrote:
I also clarified that expression of orientation through actions may be controlled or restricted, but only when a compelling, legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated.
If you are expressing your post in http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T6DB6N2BVN6FOML... then you did not clarified that expression may be controlled or restricted, only that governments can't ban same gender marriage unless it had a compelling legitimate reason, sexual orientation wasn't the focus of that end paragraph, only what the government can and can't do, but your post was focused on sexual attraction.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
That false belief sexual orientation is a choice, is then used to deny a fundamental right of the individual.
which is absolutely correct, it's not a choice.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Yet as Sheeple points out, choice of religious belief is protected, and rights cannot be restricted on the basis of belief alone.
And rightfully so.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
So even if you reject the understanding of every mainstream medical and mental health organization in the country that heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual relationships are a natural expression of human love and bonding
Who would deny that someone is having a loving and bonding relationship if both people express that they are having one?
Not Yet Equal wrote:
that belief still does not provide a compelling, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for refusing to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect for opposite sex couples.
As it should be. But that wasn't what I as disagreeing with you on.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#97 Sep 15, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help but feel you are simply repeating yourself on marriage when I have already made clear my disagreement with you is not about marriage but laws. If you didn't say or intend to say that attraction is the reason why laws can't be made to restrict it, then why even include your first two paragraphs of your post with the third?
If you are trying to make a point of lack of control of attraction why even bring up marriage? if you are talking about rights to marriage then why even bring up lack of control of attraction? Is it my fault that you spoke of both in your post?
<quoted text>
Ah, compelling to whom? society decides what is compelling or not. There have been hundreds of years of compelling scientific reasons to ban things or allow things at the time they were banned or allowed that don't stand up to today's standard's on what is compelling.
<quoted text>
I believe that We The Sheeple's definition makes it clear that harm to others isn't reason to ban something, only if it harms those directly effected.
<quoted text>
Then I guess a person can't have a sexual orientation until they reach adulthood? I suppose kids that are bullied in school for being gay aren't really gay, thus they can't file a complaint for being bullied for being gay, but just for being bullied on a false notion that they have developed their sexual orientation when it's clearly only done so after they reach adulthood.
Sexual orientation is understood by different individuals differently. For ease of discussion 18 is an age by which most will have recognized an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and physical attraction for the opposite sex, the same, or both. You can argue about the age, and it will vary for individuals, but most can agree 18 is a reasonable place to draw the line legally. Children are bullied for perceived sexual orientation, not necessarily self identity or any behavior.

Again, sexual orientation exists independent of behavior. Most know their sexual orientation long before they have an opportunity to act on it. Those who choose chastity, still have a sexual orientation, even though they choose not to express it through behavior. Thoughts and feeling are not behavior.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#98 Sep 15, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, this is the crust of the confusion. If the point that you were making was if sexual orientation isn't a behavior (which it is, a behavior) then why include government law making abilities in your third paragraph if your point was to respond to someone saying that choice or not is a good reason to create laws banning something?
Why not simply response with your belief on sexual orientation, why include a totally unrelated paragraph on law making?
Again, the false claim had been made that being gay was a behavior, and therefore could rightly be restricted by law.

Both assertions are false. Being gay is not a behavior, though it may or may not be expressed through behavior.

It may not be rightly restricted, even if you reject the idea orientation is not a choice,(or not a behavior). A legitimate interest for the restriction must be shown and gender fails the test.
Be Fair

Mililani, HI

#99 Sep 15, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text> So it is behavior, not attraction, that may be restricted, but only if a compelling, legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated and withstand review if challenged.
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.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
You replied: "So what you are saying it's ok to be gay, not illegal but the government could restrict your behavior if you act on it? "
Yes, if the only focus is on marriage in general then you are without legal recourse on other rights that you are entitled to and leave open governmental laws that can potential restrict behaviors.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Why do you continue to overlook the part that says "only if a compelling, legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated and withstand review if challenged."?
I am not ignoring it, each time you have used that line, which I am going to refer to as a line because I am beginning to think that you are just using the same paragraph over and over again just with different edits. You have ignored the simple fact that compelling is what society decides it to be. Legitimate governmental interest is what the person in government believes it to be, All are subject to what is believed and not what is.

Allow me another example. If tomorrow every position of government was held by someone who believed they had a legitimate reason to restrict your rights to protect you or society, would you agree with them? if every position held in the medical science came out tomorrow and proclaimed that acting sexually on being gay was bad for your health and they had the studies to prove it, would you support it? If these things were true and laws were created to restrict gay behaviors, not being gay, but behaviors, would you support them?

I doubt you would agree, and neither would I. I am clearly speaking in hypotheticals, but if such a reality was to present it's self, what then would be your defense be when clearly to this fictional world the government is acting on what is a compelling, legitimate reason?
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Right or wrong,(wrong) being gay was restricted in various ways at various times throughout our history, with a rapid rise in anti-gay laws resulting from the anti-gay McCarthey era red and pink scare.
Yes it was wrong, who is disputing that?
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Those anti-gay laws that restricted not only behavior, but simply being gay, were eventually all shown to be unconstitutional because they were irrational and harmful.
But your are saying that the government is allowed to restrict behavior, that attraction isn't illegal, acting on it is. which is the point of me saying "So what you are saying it's ok to be gay, not illegal but the government could restrict your behavior if you act on it?" it was my admitted sarcastic question to your statement.

If a harm was displayed in homosexual behaviors, would you support laws that ban it? I doubt you would and as I said, neither would I.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#100 Sep 15, 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>
Yes, if the only focus is on marriage in general then you are without legal recourse on other rights that you are entitled to and leave open governmental laws that can potential restrict behaviors.
<quoted text>
I am not ignoring it, each time you have used that line, which I am going to refer to as a line because I am beginning to think that you are just using the same paragraph over and over again just with different edits. You have ignored the simple fact that compelling is what society decides it to be. Legitimate governmental interest is what the person in government believes it to be, All are subject to what is believed and not what is.
Allow me another example. If tomorrow every position of government was held by someone who believed they had a legitimate reason to restrict your rights to protect you or society, would you agree with them? if every position held in the medical science came out tomorrow and proclaimed that acting sexually on being gay was bad for your health and they had the studies to prove it, would you support it? If these things were true and laws were created to restrict gay behaviors, not being gay, but behaviors, would you support them?
I doubt you would agree, and neither would I. I am clearly speaking in hypotheticals, but if such a reality was to present it's self, what then would be your defense be when clearly to this fictional world the government is acting on what is a compelling, legitimate reason?
<quoted text>
Yes it was wrong, who is disputing that?
<quoted text>
But your are saying that the government is allowed to restrict behavior, that attraction isn't illegal, acting on it is. which is the point of me saying "So what you are saying it's ok to be gay, not illegal but the government could restrict your behavior if you act on it?" it was my admitted sarcastic question to your statement.
If a harm was displayed in homosexual behaviors, would you support laws that ban it? I doubt you would and as I said, neither would I.
If, like murder, you could show homosexual behavior is always harmful to an unwilling victim, I would have to agree it should be prohibited. Fortunately, all evidence shows either orientation absent behavior, or expressed through behavior, is not inherently harmful.

Like it or not, all fundamental rights can be restricted. We can't incite a riot, or threaten to kill others, etc. One of the protections on these restrictions is the requirement all laws protect all persons equally, and that they can be challenged. The majority is less likely to place restrictions on others if those restrictions must apply to themselves as well. Clearly, the majority has unconstitutionally restricted the rights of others in the past, and that is why we are discussing marriage equality to this day.
Be Fair

Mililani, HI

#101 Sep 15, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to ignore, choice of religious belief is a protected class. Clearly, religious belief is not a born characteristic.
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?"
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text> Whether you accept the science that shows sexual orientation is not open to change or not, gender still fails as a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right.


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"
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text> As a social scientist,
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.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text> can assure you, you don't know why some people are only attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both.


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.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>Yet we have evidence that some combination of genetic and biological factors play an important role.


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.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<But again, it is irrelevant when it comes to treating all persons equally under the laws currently in effect.
Couldn't agree with you more. Which is why I am still puzzled why you still keep bringing it up.
Be Fair

Mililani, HI

#102 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Correction...
Do you really want me to defend the restrictions on incest, child abuse, informed consent, and number?
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.

“Smart@ss”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#103 Sep 16, 2013
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.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#104 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.... A person isn't born gay any more than a person is born a killer ...
First, the COURT decides "compelling interest", not the populace.

Second, you conflate orientation with it's expression.

Not very "scientific".

“Smart@ss”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#105 Sep 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the COURT decides "compelling interest", not the populace.
Second, you conflate orientation with it's expression.
Not very "scientific".
Whoa whoa whoa, easy their tiger. The man wasn't that far off the mark, we live in a democratic republic, people elect their officials and then appoint judges, if they appoint judges that align with a point of view like say wack job like Scalia, then they can do that and thus changing the whole bloody court system to favor what one deems "compelling interest" are you going to be so Court knows what's right when that horse comes into town?

Either that or one of the reasons I voted for Obama over Romney was completely for naught.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#106 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.
.......
Why would we create laws to prohibit actions based on natural attraction that HARM NO ONE? Why in the world should this country create any law that only harms a group, is based on animus or ignorance, and prohibits actions that are not harmful to anyone else?

That's the point Not Equal is trying to make.

We don't do that with heterosexuals, because their attractions are to other adults, and the actions that follow are not harmful to them, or to society in general. We only step in with regulation when an action is harmful, such as with rape, or if they involve someone who cannot consent.

Gay folks being attracted only to other adults is equally harmless, and so not in need of regulation, in exactly the same way.

Do you really want to live in a country where laws can be created that directly harm any group of people, based only on whim or animus, and not based in protecting other's rights and lives, or the greater good? Do you believe that Americans should not have any legal recourse, such as redress through the courts, if such laws are enacted?

I can't imagine you would like that for yourself, or for others.

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.

Neil Abercrombie Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hawaii pays off lawyers' fees for Honolulu news... May '15 Joe Balls 3
News VIDEO: Hawaii volcano lava prompts evacuation c... (Oct '14) Dec '14 hut 3
News Abercrombie content as he leaves office (Nov '14) Dec '14 Mike 14
News Schatz, Cavasso vie for Senate seat (Nov '14) Nov '14 Joe Balls 1
News Hawaii officials warn of possible lava evacuation (Oct '14) Oct '14 Understatement 4
News A look at the Hawaii volcano sending lava towar... (Sep '14) Sep '14 Adrian Godsafe MSc 2
News Schatz wins over voters in tough US Senate primary (Aug '14) Aug '14 Le Jimbo 5
More from around the web