Civil Unions Bill

[KeaauRich]

It could be argued that gay relationships are good for society as a whole. Since most of us aren't creating new children, we are effectively contributing to population control.

[kalama boy]

DaVinci, Thanks for the input but I am appalled at your ignorance regarding my previous posts. I agree with "live and let live, I have never tried to deny anyone of that. Again......I am simply stating MY beliefs.

I suppose we would all be a little ignorant next to you, since you have the data that goes back to the "dawn of time". 1 of every 10 people on the planet is, "since the dawn of time", gay? Really, I challenge that. How would your source arrive at that number? I didn't realize telephone surveys and questionaires have been around since the "dawn of time".

You said "our individual coupling preferences have nothing to do with this process". OK then, for fun let's reverse your "since the dawn of time" statistics from 1 in 10.... to 9 in 10 are gay. Then as the human population dies off and goes extinct because of that, would you still say that "individual coupling preferences have nothing to do with this process"? If so, I could possibly define that as ignorant.
If there are no evolutionary, natural selection results as you say with 1 in 10 being gay, then by your logic It should be the same with 9 in 10 being gay..... but it's not. You can't have it both ways.
DaVinci, since you didn't read my previous posts let me ask this again. If every human ever concieved was by 1 man and 1 woman and none have ever been conceived by 2 men or 2 women, how can the latter be natural. Granted it may make some people feel good but to call it natural, in my view, is ignorant.

KeaauRich, that's certainly a different way of looking at it.
I do agree with you though because as your statement implies, being gay or as DaVinci puts it "our coupling preferences", produce results that affect the natural selection and evolution of humans differently.
Mahalo for making my point.

[Rob Tucker]

The Civil Union bill was about contract law. Actually not marriage, procreation or who's gay and who's not. I've gleaned some interesting stuff on this from reading posts on the B.I.C.

[DickWilson]

Quite frankly, whether being gay is natural has absolutely no bearing on whether civil unions should be legal. Frankly who the hell cares whether someone views being gay as natural. By that logic we would never get on a plane as the creator, whoever, didn't give us wings, so flying isn't natural. We are talking about basic rights as guaranteed under the constitution, not those granted or not granted from some pulpit somewhere. Keep ALL Religion out of the discussion, Civil Rights are not granted based on someone's religious preferences. This is exactly why Civil Unions should not be put on the ballot, this is a republic, not a democracy where the tyranny of the many can deprive someone of their rights.

dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"

[kalama boy]

Dick I agree with you completley.
I base MY belief on homosexuality though on the feelings I have that it is unnatural and actualy, based on the responses I've received it seems alot of people do care and care very deeply.
I have never used my views to block anyones civil rights, we should all have the exact same civil rights given at birth, regardless of any type of union.
Does anyone want to discus my views on homosexuality?
With Aloha

[Rob Tucker]

Not particularly. Punaweb is for discussion of Puna and Hawaiian issues.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

[DaVinci]

Kalama Boy: The 10% figure comes from the 1948 Kinsey study. Statistical science being what it is, you can extrapolate back from that. No phone surveys to your precious Pleistocene man are necessary. Further, I read every single one of your posts, inlcuding your latest. Bravo for your witty rejoinder that threw my own language back in my face. How on earth did you think of that? Now, as for your actual logic: you seem almost plaintive in your insistence that you do not begrudge any homosexual his or her civil rights, as long as those rights are bestowed at birth. Tell me how KeaauRich is supposed to acquire the right to visit his significant other in hospital, before they have ever met each other? Shall we simpy allow all people the right to visit all others in hospital, just to cover our bases? It is a ludicrous suggestion that does not consider real world situations. As for your natural selection argument: yes, indeed, I concede that if 9 in 10 homo sapiens were gay, the species would probably die out. But as that is not the case, let's consider the reality. Now, just to be sporting about it, I'll retract the 10% figure, as you seem to have something against statistical science (you do seem to cherry pick the sciences that you consider valid, I must say). So let's take that off the table. You would certainly agree that if not statistically, then at least historically there is a precedence for homosexuals in the population of homo sapiens, as far back as the ancient Greeks (examples abound in literature with regard to the Spartans), Romans, (as they at one point actually codified and legalized the homosexual relationship), through the early Christian period (given the vehement opposition to same) and on into the previous century (as evidenced by the Nazi persecution of homosexuals). May we then concede that homosexuality is not new? If so, then it follows that homosexuality is not an example of an evolutionary mutation, for a mutation would not spontaneously occur over and over again. And as you yourself pointed out, no homosexual is capable of perpetuating the mutation, as homosexuals do not reproduce. So it follows, that homosexuality is a proclivity that arises again and again, in individual homo sapiens, all of whom are birthed by non-homosexual homo sapiens. Therefore it is not a part of the natural selection paradigm. Now, one might argue that the species homo sapiens did in fact develop the propensity toward a multitude of sexual preferences, in order, perhaps, to somehow aid in the dispersal of the seed, the result of which was a pullulating species that perhaps wiped out all other species without the same proclivity. The evidence for that conclusion is that we are here. That is the one aspect of the theory of natural selection that I don't think you fully grasp. The species that have survived to this point in the history of the Earth are in fact natural, by definition. An unnatural mutation, i.e, one that did not provide its host species with an advantage, would certainly have caused that species to compete less effectively and as a result, die out. And yet, we are here, complete with a homosexual contingent that has been with us for quite some time. Now, you are certainly entitled to your beliefs. However, facts and opinions are not the same thing. If I suggest that the square root of the sum of two sides of a right triangle, each squared, is equal to the length of that triangle's hypotenuse, and you counter that you believe it is, rather, equal to the length of a hippopotamus, then I am entitled to tell you that you are wrong. Believe what you will about homosexuals. I vehemently disagree with you, but allow you your prejudice. However, please admit that it is merely a prejudice, and stop trying to wrap your backward ideas in the mantle of science.

[Rob Tucker]

While interesting this is really drifting off of Hawaii's failure to pass the Civil Union legislation and implications thereof. Punaweb is not for debating the nature of man. So I am going to ask everyone to get back on track. It's not that hard to do.



Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

[KeaauRich]

And actually, to really bring this discussion back to the actual Bill, remember that the Bill the governor vetoed allowed civil unions between any two people, they didn't have to be gay or of the same sex. And the two individuals could not be related (so no father/son or mother/daughter civil unions), which I believe eliminates the objections some in this thread have raised..

I would still like Kalama to expand on his notion of civil rights granted at birth. How would that apply to Social Security Survivor benefits (which I can't get), Hospital Visitation issues (which are dicey at best), domestic partner job benefits (which I have to pay taxes on and married couples don't), and landlord-tenant issues (leases often restrict occupancy to the person who signed the lease, or to those related "by blood or marriage." If a person has a lease with such a provision and a lover or roommate moves in, the landlord might use the clause to seek to evict both the tenant and the roommate.) Rather than talking in generalities and muddying the waters with talk of natural selection, unnatural acts etc. etc., answer how life would be different under his scenario...and also how he intends to enact the changes he proposes.

[AlohaSteven]

If anyone is attending the Open Forum with Mufi Hannemann tonight (7:00pm, 13JUL, Sangha Hall) touted for being a time to "ask any question and find out about everything you wanted to know" then please ask him if he would sign or veto the same civil unions bill Lingle vetoed, were he to become governor.

Abercrombie has already said he would sign it. Hannemann is on record as saying he is against equal marriage rights for all but has waffled about whether or not he would veto or sign a civil unions bill.



)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(

All creative work is derivative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY

)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(