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.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#150 Sep 26, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say "emerges".
Perhaps, but that would be assuming that it was there to begin with.

Simplifying a complex issue with a single word or phrase. Also known as the fallacy of Reductionism
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#151 Sep 26, 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.
No, that was what I concluded after reading your post http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/T6DB6N...
You clearly stated in two paragraphs that people have no choice over whom they are attracted to. That a lack of control over one's personal attractions to one sex or the other is clearly studied and researched. You then conclude what the government can or cannot regulate.

But I can see this discussion has been debated Ad nauseam.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Gender is an irrational restriction for marriage, which I have stated time and time again is a social contract between adults (well children too in some places but I digress.) It doesn't make sense to ban only marriage between one man and one woman when all other contracts baring the rare exceptions, have no such restriction.

Perhaps the schoolyard bully was right, you simply tagged your end paragraph of you post with a common paragraph that you use.
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#152 Sep 26, 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 one has been born (so far) with the ability to reproduce, that is something that develops as a person goes through puberty (with rare exceptions)

But I will give you a break and say I know what you were trying to say and you can't compare a physical trait with a behavioral one.
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#153 Sep 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Forgive me, but it seems that you are the one "swinging wildly" I never brought up religion in any of my posts and not in a single one of my posts did I ever say that people should be denied marriage. In fact I have repeated over and over again that it doesn't matter to me one little bit, that I prefer the label of marriage removed and replace with civil unions with all social contracts in the future.

The only reason I am still here is that I am debating a single point and that is the reasons someone is attempting to justify doing away with a law should be in a way that doesn't weaken the sound reasoning behind other laws.

precedent is being established with the LBGT movement, like civil rights, woman rights and labor rights that came before them it will be a model on challenging laws and society norms in the future. LBGT movement is unique in that it's people's sexual personality in nature.

People are fighting for their right to be accepted in all aspects of society based on their sexual personality. Based on the patterned of movements that have come before this model can and will be used by others that have sexual personalities that they believe is being restricted unfairly.

Which is where the extreme examples provided by my colleague and I have brought up. If the enduring pattern of rights movements continue then it stands to reason that we will be faced with a similar cause in the future.

This isn't me trying to fight against the LBGT movement, it's me debating if history should list if someone has no control over their sexual attractions as then a right that they cannot be restricted from having and acting on them.

I am not your enemy on this matter.
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#154 Sep 26, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I have time and time again presented valid points to you in numerous discussions and you have yet to take any of them seriously.

And the poor woman that had the displeasure of marrying you should be giving a medal with having to put with your ignorant antics.
Be Fair

Wahiawa, HI

#155 Sep 26, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I doubt that very much. You are in no way shape or form a person of means to provide anyone with that kind of lifestyle.

Is your mother proud of her lying son?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#156 Sep 26, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that was what I concluded after reading your post http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/T6DB6N...
You clearly stated in two paragraphs that people have no choice over whom they are attracted to. That a lack of control over one's personal attractions to one sex or the other is clearly studied and researched. You then conclude what the government can or cannot regulate.
But I can see this discussion has been debated Ad nauseam.
<quoted text>
Gender is an irrational restriction for marriage, which I have stated time and time again is a social contract between adults (well children too in some places but I digress.) It doesn't make sense to ban only marriage between one man and one woman when all other contracts baring the rare exceptions, have no such restriction.
Perhaps the schoolyard bully was right, you simply tagged your end paragraph of you post with a common paragraph that you use.
"Looking" was arguing for restricting equal rights. My final paragraph addressed that desire.

His justification was based on the claim that sexual orientation is both a choice and a behavior, and further that because behavior is a choice, it can therefore properly be restricted.

I addressed those issues by stating (and further documenting) that sexual orientation is neither a behavior nor a choice. I also stated acting on attractions is a choice and while true that behavior can be controlled, if you wish to legally restrict a fundamental right, you must have a compelling reason for doing so, and he has no such reason.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#157 Sep 26, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't me trying to fight against the LBGT movement, it's me debating if history should list if someone has no control over their sexual attractions as then a right that they cannot be restricted from having and acting on them.
Only you and "Looking" are debating this point.

Behavior, or acting on attractions can be restricted. But only if there is a compelling reason for doing so, such as protecting the equal rights and safety of others.

But I would also clarify again, that sexual orientation is not just sexual attraction, but emotional and romantic attraction in addition to physical attraction.(If you disagree, don't tell your wife!)

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#158 Sep 26, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the schoolyard bully was right, you simply tagged your end paragraph of your post with a common paragraph that you use.
Well if you didn't just blindly use Ad hominem (fallacy is fun!) you would have saved yourself and everyone in this thread a great deal of headache.

But points for finally admitting you were wrong. Takes a big man to do that, you are growing up so fast.

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#159 Sep 26, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
I have time and time again presented valid points to you in numerous discussions and you have yet to take any of them seriously.
And the poor woman that had the displeasure of marrying you should be giving a medal with having to put with your ignorant antics.
Well when you make a serious point I will more than happy to take it under consideration.

Yes... my wife does deserve a medal, but I don't like to kiss and tell.

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#160 Sep 26, 2013
Be Fair wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt that very much. You are in no way shape or form a person of means to provide anyone with that kind of lifestyle.
Is your mother proud of her lying son?
Yup, you got me, I am lying. I need to go sit in the corner and think about what I did. Clearly you have bested me, I am without any recourse or retort when you provide such strong proof that I am lying, there is no doubt what so ever that I am indeed a poor person.

You sir, are just so good at measuring others.

/end sarcasm

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#161 Sep 27, 2013
New Jersey today: "Judge Mary Jacobson of the Mercer County Superior Court ruled Friday that gay couples can marry in the Garden State starting October 21.

Jacobson said she made her decision in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on United States v. Windsor, but the ruling is likely to be appealed.

"This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to satisfy equal protection guarantees of the New Jersy Constitution as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis," wrote the judge. "Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/new-...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

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