• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hawaii Gov. Vetoes Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill

If you will but note I did write 'My personal opinion'.
Do tell how you manage to misinterpret the meaning of those three words?

I misinterpreted nothing, you said that you believed that gays contaminate society. I asked how since the divorce rate is 50% for heterosexuals.

Or is your "opinion" strictly ignorant?
 
No, it would have made gay unions on an equal benefit level with marriage without calling it marriage. This is a victory for citizens who would be allowed to vote and define what marriage is in their state.

So you believe gays as second class citizens then.
 
No, I believe homosexual unions are not marriage.

And they weren't being called marriage, so what's your problem? Do you believe their unions to be second class?
 
Well good for you. I feel the same way about most heterosexual so called marriages.

And you have a right to that opinion, and I must say I agree with you on that one.
 
And you have a right to that opinion, and I must say I agree with you on that one.

My opinion inclines me to getting married in the Church of Satan or maybe a Wiccan coven. I wonder how long their marriages last?
 
My opinion inclines me to getting married in the Church of Satan or maybe a Wiccan coven. I wonder how long their marriages last?

If it's anything like gay marriage, apparently only as long as the next election, or until the next whackjob vetoes your legal union because they think you're inferior or undeserving.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I have a question for the people who oppose gay people getting married?

Why?
 
The only thing this ruling has proven is that the anti-gm crowd will not be satisfied with unions and the only resolve for gays is to fight for gay marriage.
 
No, it would have made gay unions on an equal benefit level with marriage without calling it marriage. This is a victory for citizens who would be allowed to vote and define what marriage is in their state.

Gays in CA found out otherwise, which is why they're fighting prop8. Separate but equal is not equal.
 
This is not marriage. It makes no intrusion into the church or your private life. It is a legal agreement between two people.
 
This is not marriage. It makes no intrusion into the church or your private life. It is a legal agreement between two people.

See that just doesn't mean anything to people like myself who don't belong to any church yet see marriage as so much more than a mere contract.
 
See that just doesn't mean anything to people like myself who don't belong to any church yet see marriage as so much more than a mere contract.

Then leave the legal stuff to the state, and the actual marriage stuff to private institutions.
 
Then leave the legal stuff to the state, and the actual marriage stuff to private institutions.

When have I don otherwise?

Tell me, why is affirming Domestic Partnership anti-gay in CA but pro-gay in Hawaii?
 
When have I don otherwise?

Tell me, why is affirming Domestic Partnership anti-gay in CA but pro-gay in Hawaii?

I dunno? I believe that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples should be treated equally under the law. However, I think that marriage should be kept private with the state only intervening with joining people legally.
 
No, it would have made gay unions on an equal benefit level with marriage without calling it marriage.
I thought this was the whole reason why conservatives supported civil unions since it would give all the benefits of marriage to gay couples without destroying the sanctity of the institution. Now that isn't good enough for you?
This is a victory for citizens who would be allowed to vote and define what marriage is in their state.
Hawaii has no process to allow initiatives or referendums. The only way citizens can define what marriage is is to elect like minded officials to the state's legislature who then write and vote on bills. So indirectly this bill was what the people of Hawaii wanted.
 
I truly can't even believe this is coming under debate, ok you disagree with marriage because you think it's sacred or ___ insert reason here. Now people don't even want them to have equal right unions? It's not marriage bet the next best thing and people are still against it. That to me is borderline bigotry
 
I dunno? I believe that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples should be treated equally under the law. However, I think that marriage should be kept private with the state only intervening with joining people legally.

Yeah that just doesn't make any sence at all.
 
I truly can't even believe this is coming under debate, ok you disagree with marriage because you think it's sacred or ___ insert reason here. Now people don't even want them to have equal right unions? It's not marriage bet the next best thing and people are still against it. That to me is borderline bigotry

So why do you hate gays so much that you want to designate their unions as anything other than "marriage"? Why the push for second-class status?
 
Yeah that just doesn't make any sence at all.

The government handles stuff like allowing you to get a joint bank account, being executor of your spouse's will, ect and calls it a civil union

Being an ordained minister and officiating the ceremony that joins two or more people into a partnership until death or divorce court do they part is all private.
 
"The voters should decide" is just an excuse to cover bigotry. The people of Hawaii did decide when they elected their representatives.

You don't know that. For many people, I think homosexual relationship issues are pretty far down the list of concerns when it comes to voting, if they even consider it at all. Maybe they just can't frikken afford leftist reps.
 
The government handles stuff like allowing you to get a joint bank account, being executor of your spouse's will, ect and calls it a civil union.

You don't have to be married for those things.

Being an ordained minister and officiating the ceremony that joins two or more people into a partnership until death or divorce court do they part is all private.

See that just doesn't follow. Please use more words.
 
"The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day," Lingle said. "It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

Isn't that the point of a Republic? We elect officials who will vote on these things?
 
Back
Top Bottom