Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
I'm not. Kalama boy, it is obscene to me that you naturally equate homosexuality with some imagined slippery slope wherein polygamy must then naturally follow, then, naturally of course, incest, and beyond that, who knows? Beastiality? Your logic is classic reductio ad absurdum and is patently offensive to every gay person reading this thread (and me)! I chose to humor you, in the spirit of bringing the thread back to the topic of the civil union bill that has been recently vetoed by our opportunistic and infinitely hypocritical governor, but the sentiments of AlohaSteven are closer to the sentiments of my heart. How is it somehow less or more important to FEEL equal under the law when in fact, one is not? The law is the law, and if it were equal (which in my mind would afford the right to MARRY to all gay and lesbian citizens nationwide) then you or Bubba from West Virginia or whoever else was so backward that they still thought homosexuality was somehow unnatural, could gnash your teeth to your heart's content, as do, I am sure, certain members of the KKK with regard to persons of color, but that would be a private concern of yours (and Bubba's), while the law would be protecting AlohaSteven and KeaauRich and robguz and all others who, by only the whim of nature, find themselves to be homosexual in, sadly, a still intolerant society.
Posts: 2,655
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
quote:
Originally posted by AlohaSteven: This is not about acceptance by people who despise one because of skin color, religion, affectional orientation, or suchlike but rather is about holding equal rights under the law in public venues where everyone's tax money paid equally (at least in theory) toward evenhandedly administering a government of the people, by the people, for the people. That which matters (and hugely so) is that the law requires equal treatment in the public arena.
Just for the sake of argument (I'm not picking sides here), "affectional orientation" is not a protected class under the US Constitution, so I believe your argument is flawed, at least that part is.
quote:
Originally posted by DaVinci: then you or Bubba from West Virginia or whoever else was so backward that they still thought homosexuality was somehow unnatural, could gnash your teeth to your heart's content, as do, I am sure, certain members of the KKK with regard to persons of color, but that would be a private concern of yours (and Bubba's)
Whats this? You don't like his position so you decide to attack or slander the person. What if I'm from W.Va.? You are deciding to associate him with the racists of the KKK? Is that necessary?
Other than that $.02 I'm not in this argument. Those two things just bothered me a tad.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 78
Threads: 8
Joined: Dec 2009
DaVinci, I didnt equate Homosexuality with any slippery slope, it sounds like in your mind you are. Polygamy doesnt follow homosexuality the arguments for polygamy have been ongoing forever. So again instead of attacking me because my views are not the same as yours, why not just try and honestly answer the question that has been asked for generations?
If you agree with equal rights and benefits for 2 would you also agree with equal rights and benefits for 3?
As I have said, I am 100% in favor of the law protecting Alohasteven ,Keaaurich, you and Robguz, I think your hang up is the fact that I think Homosexuality is unnatural, and you have already indicated that you can not tolerate different views than your own.
Why do you always let other peoples views offend you? I choose otherwise and I think in the long run it may add years to my life.
Posts: 8,472
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
Kalama Boy, You are getting pretty abstract with this. There is no legislation pending to allow polygamy in the State of Hawaii.
I do agree with you that those who hold differing views should not be making personal attacks. It violates our user agreement.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 798
Threads: 38
Joined: May 2005
quote:
Originally posted by oink
Just for the sake of argument (I'm not picking sides here), "affectional orientation" is not a protected class under the US Constitution, so I believe your argument is flawed, at least that part is.
You are correct. In fact, blacks are considered 2/3 of a person. I don't think there are any protected classes in the Constitution. I know almost nothing about constitutional law. But I believe the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is what has been used, and ultimately successful in cases that make clear that people must be treated equally when they are otherwise being discriminated against on whatever basis. That doesn't mean or rely on anyone being in a "protected class."
As for kalamaboy and the "unnatural" idea. I guess what I don't understand is why you focus on it being, "unnatural" as you call. As has been shown and stated to you it is something that has existed throughout human history (from the Greeks to Kamehameha himself-at least behavior wise) and exists in many other animals, including our closest primate relatives, so in fact, it is as natural as any other measurable thing in many species. In fact anything which exists without being manipulated by humans or any other animal should be considered "natural." If your argument is that homosexuality not being the dominant sexual orientation in any species, therefore it is unnatural--well you are using a different definition of unnatural, and you're free to do that, and correct if that is your definition. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything or that anyone is advocating that all non-gays must immediately cease their heterosexuality and become gay. I just wonder if you have the same vigor in pointing out all the things that are unnatural by that definition, such as being male, being left-handed, having blue eyes (a mutation that developed only 10,000 years ago), etc. By most people's and certainly any scientific definition of what is natural, being the majority or meeting any certain percentage threshold is not implied or required. Basically your "belief" that homosexuality is unnatural is similar to the "belief" in intelligent design, that the world is flat, that astrology rules all of our lives, etc, or anything else that has been disproven by science. Since you state you are a believer in natural selection, etc. you think you would be consistent in applying science to your reasoning, but if you aren't, whatever, anyone can believe whatever they want!
This has nothing to do with seeking any societal approval. In fact a large percentage of the gay community historically has not wanted to be socially accepted and have been more interested in creating different, and sometimes rejected social cultures. That however does not preclude being treated equally under the law. I don't really myself have any interest in being embraced or socially accepted by anyone based on being gay, but I certainly, and legally, have the right not to be discriminated against based on that fact. And it seems you agree with that so good for you!
Posts: 78
Threads: 8
Joined: Dec 2009
Thanks Rob, I have really only defended myself since I made my initial post.
OK, I'm done also.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Kalama Boy, you keep brining in costume dancing monkeys and coqui frog orchestra to avoid addressing the real issue. You mentioned homosexuality, un-natural acts and procreation. So I'll repeat myself:
Marriage or Civil Union under Hawaii law, has absolutely nothing to do with sexual conduct. There is no statutory or implied sexual relation clause in the law. It is a contractual relationship to commit to each other. Nothing in Hawaii law or even religious marriage doctrine, says that sex is a component of marriage. As a matter of fact, heterosexual couples who engaged in sex must do so by consent. A legally married man and woman can be criminally charged with rape if sex is forced without consent. Marriage between man and women does not grant rights to sex any more or less than any man or woman.
Since the laws have nothing to do with sexual conduct, reproduction, or sex; what exactly in the laws do you object too?
Posts: 78
Threads: 8
Joined: Dec 2009
Bob, respectfuly, nothing , I completley agree with you. Has anyone actualy read my posts?
I do not object to the laws and have stated I believe in equal rights for ALL, numerous times. I simply stated in an earlier post that I believe homosexuality is unnatural.
Robguz, DaVinci I hear and respect everything your saying I just disagree with everything your saying.
You create an ocean of words but only a drop of logic, I meen, come on " all non-gays must immediatley cease their homosexuality and become gay". What? I think the non-gay guy having sex with another dude .....just might be gay already, but thats just a guess.
I am a simple man so here is a simple question (or is it).
What came first the chicken or the egg?
Lets see how many long paragraphs it takes you to try and explain this life riddle.
And it is relevent cause,... we love us some chickens in Hawaii... oh and you mentioned inteligent design in your last post.
Posts: 8,472
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
Ah but the mysteries of the universe are to be discussed on some other forum. Punaweb is for discussion of things Hawaii and Puna.
Bob is on topic. Kalama boy is not.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
Kalama boy: you seem to feel so misunderstood. You accuse us all of not reading your posts, but then you blithely comment that you disagree with everything I said, even though several of my posts were dedicated not to a defense of my beliefs but rather, to a defense of science. Do you disagree with science? Or perhaps you simply don't understand it. Fine. Whatever. You seem to posit simple questions, as if that in itself was somehow virtuous. Again, whatever. Live your life as you please. I am dismayed that you yourself do not seem interested in actually reading and considering the posts opposed to your views. You stand against us all by simply singing your original song louder and louder, without the least interest in the substance of anything being offered here. That, coupled with your incessant thrumming about polygamy (one would think you "protest too much" and perhaps were angling to take a second wife yourself)... leads me to the conclusion that I ought to suffer the fool no longer. Therefore, I too am now done, and will not post again on this thread.
|
