Islanders protest gay-marriage ban - News

Sarah wrote:

For legal rights, call it something else and make out a will. They do not like 'domestic partners', how about 'partner marriage', there must be some other legal term which would be acceptable to give them the same rights, as they want the same rights.
If a 'marriage' does not have to be between a man and a woman, maybe I would like to marry my house. However, it might be a bit tough to get a signature from it.

Nope. We're married. It's a marriage. Get over it.

I will not reduce our marriage to something less because you have some irrational notion of ownership of the word.

What kind of role-model are the children imprinted with in these types of skewed relationships?

Can we predict future generations of messed up youth beyond the current "Ainokea" generation as a result of this?

The current "have it your way" culture expects personalization in everything, from food to online shopping, at a mouse click away - from religion to education to marriage.

You can't keep reinventing the wheel at your convenience without it being destroyed.

In the end, the children pay dearly in loss of identity and values.

dudealohajoe wrote:

<quoted text>
But Ellen is my favorite talk show host...
Isn't Ellen yer's too?
She wants to marry her gay biotch.

She already did. And it still stands.

Moderated Comments wrote:

Does the Star Bulletin not moderate comments? I'm very surprised that these hateful comments are allowed (regardless of view). Whether for or against, just state your opinion, don't condemn.

You're not posting on the Star Bulletin. You're posting on topix.

surpriseing to see soooo many ignorant aholes on one page. all people gay or straight deserve the same rights. blacks, whites whateveers

let them marry ------- that will teach em !!!!-----

realist wrote:

surpriseing to see soooo many ignorant aholes on one page. all people gay or straight deserve the same rights. blacks, whites whateveers

Same right?
they already have a right to marry any opposite sex. Maybe you mean, they want special right!

dudealohajoe wrote:

It's a SAUSAGE PARTY!!!!!!

Grow up.

dudealohajoe wrote:

<quoted text>
Being gay is not a genetically based pre-disposition... Hence should not and cannot be included as a fundamental right of humans.

Then neither can religion.

dudealohajoe wrote:

What r 2 biotches gonna do with each odda?

That's none of your business. GROW UP.

Jill wrote:

<quoted text>
Same right?
they already have a right to marry any opposite sex. Maybe you mean, they want special right!

Oh that's a good one.

So you don't mind if a gay man marries your sister, daughter, etc?

THINK THINGS THROUGH before you type them out.

There is no special right because straight people will also have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

And that right will be just as useless to them as straight marriage is to us.

Use your head.

gays currently have exactly the same rights as non gays. what they are after is special rights. this is wrong.

Prop 8 was a terribly hateful and bigoted proposition.

But not for the reasons you think.

If it failed, Polygamists, transgenders, shemale, hegirls, hermaphrodites would have continued to be discriminated against.

No reason to allow one form of aberation from the norm without allowing the rest.

In fact, polygamy is probably more historically "normal" than monogamy. It is still legal all around the world. Where it is not legal, it is still practiced. It is a basic part of some of the world's largest religions.

You cannot have legal homo marriage without allowing any group of adults the same rights.

Its not so much a slippery slope, its a cliff.

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh that's a good one.
So you don't mind if a gay man marries your sister, daughter, etc?
THINK THINGS THROUGH before you type them out.
There is no special right because straight people will also have the right to marry someone of the same sex.
And that right will be just as useless to them as straight marriage is to us.
Use your head.

This is not about rights because California gays already have the same rights via civil unions.

This is about homosexuals trying to achieve an overnight stamp of approval and normal by destroying the definition of marriage that has been incredibly consistent throughout time and civilizations.

From modern developed countries to isolated and mostly lost villages of South American, marriage has been between men and women, not men and men.

This isn't about rights. Its about "feelings".

Shame on Iwamoto for trying to draw paralels betwen gay marriage and Japanese interrment.

dudealohajoe... you have no idea what "aloha" means. i suggest you change your name. btw you sound gay, you know how to do it too!

So silly -- all the talk of banging and pee pee and poo poo. All the stuff you can't stand thinking of gays doing is stuff that straights do as well. Get over it.

dudealohajoe wrote:

<quoted text>
The freedom of religion is a fundamental right as it is a basic human need. Wanting to stick yer schtick into anodda man's okole, is a perversion, not a fundamental human need.

LOL you're contradicting yourself.

You said: "Being gay is not a genetically based pre-disposition... Hence should not and cannot be included as a fundamental right of humans."

Do you know what "hence" means? It means "therefore" or "so." YOU SAID that SINCE being gay is not a genetically based pre-disposition, it should not and cannot be included as a fundamental right of humans.

Well, religion is also "not a genetically based pre-disposition" so if that is the reason you used against gay people, then you messed up because that very same argument FITS against religion, whether your like it or not, whether you try to spin it another way or not.

Since religion IS protected as a fundamental right AND it is not a genetically based pre-disposition, THAT INVALIDATES THE USE OF THAT REASON AGAINST GAY PEOPLE.

It's called basic logic. Duh.

Furthermore, you absolutely CAN live without religion. Ever hear of atheists?

So THAT invalidates your little "comeback."

And finally, I don't want to confuse you by making too many points in one post, because you're likely to only "get" one at a time and won't be able to stay focused, but your basic premise is also incorrect. I was born gay, so there goes your little theory that it is not "a genetic predisposition."

Slather some butter on yourself. You're toast.

Ah Hawai'i -- my birthplace, and thank GOD I moved to the mainland to get away from the overt bigotry there.

Omama wrote:

Prop 8 was a terribly hateful and bigoted proposition.
But not for the reasons you think.
If it failed, Polygamists, transgenders, shemale, hegirls, hermaphrodites would have continued to be discriminated against.
No reason to allow one form of aberation from the norm without allowing the rest.
In fact, polygamy is probably more historically "normal" than monogamy. It is still legal all around the world. Where it is not legal, it is still practiced. It is a basic part of some of the world's largest religions.
You cannot have legal homo marriage without allowing any group of adults the same rights.
Its not so much a slippery slope, its a cliff.

Why should I care?

"transgenders, shemale, hegirls, hermaphrodites" can already get legally married.

So can convicted murderers, people divorced 10 times, atheists, etc.

Is polygamy supposed to scare me?