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.

Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#128 Sep 24, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the COURT decides "compelling interest", not the populace
The court decides what is legal in the frame work of the constitution, it doesn't decide what is "compelling interest" anymore than a protest does. You can draft a law that is completely against any compelling interest as long as it is written in the right manner and doesn't violate constitutional laws.

A good example of this is attempts to ban violent video games in California, There is no empirical proof that shows that violent video games are harmful or not. But California created a law that attempted to ban them.

The only thing that prevented the law from standing was the fact it was poorly written, because it was too board in language on what was violent, the law that overturned. Compelling interest played no role at all, and if the law was written better, the law would have stood.
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#129 Sep 24, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Where in any of my posts did I ever say that I approve of any laws that supports harming other people's rights?
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#130 Sep 24, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Again, the orange painted dog that just walked into the room that has nothing to do with what I was talking about should be talked about in your eyes because you would rather talk about it than the real topic at hand.

I understand now.
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#132 Sep 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<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.
Clearly you are contradicting yourself again, I hope this doesn't become a pattern.

You say that society isn't singular, that individuals make it up, then you say that one group decides what is right or wrong, then you say it's fine if another group of people are willing to change the rules to ban what they feel is wrong even when clearly nothing is wrong with it and then close with that it is groups of individuals that make decisions in society.

Forgive my if I am wrong, but wouldn't the very definition of a society is a group of individuals as you so brilliantly stated in your opening sentence? And aren't there universal beliefs that individuals share that make them part of that society?

Clearly you can see my confusion in your post.

There are no denying that individuals within a society are what makes it up, I would think that would be painfully obvious to anyone. It's like saying that the human body is made up of cells. Doesn't change the fact that the body is still the singular representation of the mass that makes it up.
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#133 Sep 24, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I haven't twisted anything, as I have stated in my earlier post, if you did not intend to reason that sexual attraction being out of someone's control is reason enough to not create laws that ban actions based on those attractions then why even bring up lawmaking in the last paragraph of your post?

If you were just pointing out that sexual orientation isn't a choice and was attempting to correct someone's ignorance on the matter then why didn't you just state your point alone? Why did you include what the government can or cannot do in regards to law making if you didn't intend or believe that it was connected?
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#134 Sep 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the anti-gays keep claiming our right to marry can be restricted because we supposedly "choose" to be gay.
Being gay isn't a choice, I think that has been proven time and time again. It's something that develops.
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#135 Sep 24, 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.
You are a typical school yard bully. I bet your parents must be proud of your ignorant labels of others.
Beauty Queen

London, UK

#136 Sep 24, 2013
Cordwainter Trout wrote:
.
Silly internet troll ...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#137 Sep 24, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
The court decides what is legal in the frame work of the constitution, it doesn't decide what is "compelling interest" anymore than a protest does. You can draft a law that is completely against any compelling interest as long as it is written in the right manner and doesn't violate constitutional laws.
A good example of this is attempts to ban violent video games in California, There is no empirical proof that shows that violent video games are harmful or not. But California created a law that attempted to ban them.
The only thing that prevented the law from standing was the fact it was poorly written, because it was too board in language on what was violent, the law that overturned. Compelling interest played no role at all, and if the law was written better, the law would have stood.
Actually not so. In legal challenges you use the easiest thing that will work.

There is also a distinct difference between banning a product and restricting the Freedom of Citizens to BUY that product. To abridge such a Freedom requires that sufficient cause be forwarded to so limit the sovereign Citizen.

"Compelling Interest" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_inter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#138 Sep 24, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you are contradicting yourself again, I hope this doesn't become a pattern.
You say that society isn't singular, that individuals make it up, then you say that one group decides what is right or wrong, then you say it's fine if another group of people are willing to change the rules to ban what they feel is wrong even when clearly nothing is wrong with it and then close with that it is groups of individuals that make decisions in society.
Forgive my if I am wrong, but wouldn't the very definition of a society is a group of individuals as you so brilliantly stated in your opening sentence? And aren't there universal beliefs that individuals share that make them part of that society?
Clearly you can see my confusion in your post.
There are no denying that individuals within a society are what makes it up, I would think that would be painfully obvious to anyone. It's like saying that the human body is made up of cells. Doesn't change the fact that the body is still the singular representation of the mass that makes it up.
A confusion of symbol with referent, sometimes called "the Fallacy of False Concreteness".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#139 Sep 24, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
Being gay isn't a choice, I think that has been proven time and time again. It's something that develops.
I'd say "emerges".

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#140 Sep 24, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't twisted anything, as I have stated in my earlier post, if you did not intend to reason that sexual attraction being out of someone's control is reason enough to not create laws that ban actions based on those attractions then why even bring up lawmaking in the last paragraph of your post?
If you were just pointing out that sexual orientation isn't a choice and was attempting to correct someone's ignorance on the matter then why didn't you just state your point alone? Why did you include what the government can or cannot do in regards to law making if you didn't intend or believe that it was connected?
Your words, again: "because someone isn't in control of their attraction that is reason enough to not create laws the prohibit actions based on those attractions".

Again, I never made that claim. That is your twist.

The assertion being presented was that gender is a legitimate legal restriction on marriage because sexual orientation is a choice. Both the premise and conclusion are wrong. Sexual orientation is not a choice, but gender remains an irrational restriction for other reasons, even if one rejects the accepted understanding that orientation is not a choice. Choice of how to live your life can be protected when it doesn't deny others the same rights.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#141 Sep 24, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
Being gay isn't a choice, I think that has been proven time and time again. It's something that develops.
Using your reasoning, we would have to say no one is born with the ability to reproduce. It develops.

I agree emerges is a better word, but Ok.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#142 Sep 24, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words, again: "because someone isn't in control of their attraction that is reason enough to not create laws the prohibit actions based on those attractions".
Again, I never made that claim. That is your twist.
The assertion being presented was that gender is a legitimate legal restriction on marriage because sexual orientation is a choice. Both the premise and conclusion are wrong. Sexual orientation is not a choice, but gender remains an irrational restriction for other reasons, even if one rejects the accepted understanding that orientation is not a choice. Choice of how to live your life can be protected when it doesn't deny others the same rights.
(parse out the entrained negatives in "be fair"s post again ... closely)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#143 Sep 24, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Using your reasoning, we would have to say no one is born with the ability to reproduce. It develops.
I agree emerges is a better word, but Ok.
No human (so far) has been born with the ability to reproduce. Reproduction remains a latent potential until the hormones and clock finish their appointed rounds.

Your post seems to conflate "orientation" with "reproduction".

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#144 Sep 24, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the orange painted dog that just walked into the room that has nothing to do with what I was talking about should be talked about in your eyes because you would rather talk about it than the real topic at hand.
I understand now.
The topic at hand is marriage law in Hawaii, isn't it? Who can be denied the legal right to marry, and for what reasons that right can be denied?

You seem to be swinging wildly, but not making any valid points.

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#145 Sep 25, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Me? Insult anyone? My my dear brother I would never do that to someone and I always take all points that anyone makes in any discussion if they are presented with intelligence.

But let's be honest, when have you ever did that?

And by the way... how did you know that I cliff dive? Are you following me around Hawaii? Having latent urges for me... just so you know, I am married now.

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#146 Sep 25, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a typical school yard bully. I bet your parents must be proud of your ignorant labels of others.
Well, my father is dead so I am not sure if he would be proud of me or not, but my mother seems to happy, considering that the rest of her children and myself send her on trips around the world about 9 months of the year.

Now, I am not sure if a poor working single mother that now spends her days visiting one life long dream designation after another thanks to the work of her children that she worked hard to raise and sacrificed for would be proud of them, but I am willing to go on the limb and say yes, she is.

Would you take 1 out of 2 proud parents?
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#148 Sep 26, 2013
For reasons Unknown, a moderator saw fit to delete my response to this post, I will re-post for clarity as it was originally post 131
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Without protest from myself. It is in fact, the point I have been making this whole time.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> 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 confuse me here, You are comparing Sexual Orientation with which hand someone is dominate with. I believe it's clear that one's Orientation is unchangeable but with enough training and practice a person's non-dominate hand can be used with the same strength and skill as their dominate hand.

Unless you are implying that one Sexual Orientation is open to being trained out of themselves I think you picked a poor example.

Let me be clear, in the bluntness of ways.

Do you have the peer reviewed study that ends the Nature vs Nurture debate with empirical data that shows that Homosexuality is a state in which someone is born in?

I await the your link as my own searches have come up empty.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> You can pretend to be a scientist all you want.
I can assure you I am, but with all things on the internet, you have every right and duty to take it with as much salt as you so desire. After all everyone is Rich, Famous, Good-Looking and Can beat you up without a sweat on the internet.

I, on the other hand will take comfort in knowing that discoveries that I was a part of are already being taught in classrooms, that the legacy of my work will be the shoulders that future generations will stand on for breakthroughs of their own and that the project that my research team and I are working on now may very will save the life of you or a loved one.

What good sir, have been your contributions to the human race?
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#149 Sep 26, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
A confusion of symbol with referent, sometimes called "the Fallacy of False Concreteness".
Ah, Whitehead's little pet fallacy, which doesn't apply to my end statement that was clearly intended to be a metaphor and not literal. But I can understand your confusion with it's use when the correct application of False Concreteness is so vague.

But amazing use of the fallacy of composition.

I like you, I hadn't had a game of fallacy in a while. Since we will be playing this game that you started, I wonder what other fallacies I can pull from your statements if they were a bit longer than one sentence. I am excited.

Be bold my friend.

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 Trump Dispatches Investigators To Hawaii To Loo... (May '11) Jan '17 Pharting Dude 23
News Preservation unit under probe - Hawaii News (Aug '09) Jul '16 Georgina 45
News Hawaii pays off lawyers' fees for Honolulu news... (May '15) 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
More from around the web