Your Views for August 1


Hindering success

I am writing to share my concerns regarding Bill 256 (which the mayor vetoed but is scheduled for an override vote today before the County Council). This bill will change the purpose of the Geothermal Relocation and Community Benefits Program by removing any references to community benefits and focusing solely on studies and purchasing equipment. Studies have already been done in the past and have indicated no adverse health affects caused by the Puna Geothermal Venture plant.

The Geothermal Relocation and Community Benefits Program has provided funding to pave roads and provide a satellite county office in Puna, when the county did not have the funding available for such purposes. Why does the County Council want to change a successful program that has helped the community in Puna, especially at a time when revenues are down?

If the County Council overrides the mayor’s veto, then this will create an atmosphere of uncertainty regarding other community benefit programs, such as was recently offered by Aina Koa Pono that wanted to build a biofuel plant in Ka‘u. The community will be less likely to accept such programs if they believe that at a later date the County Council will come along and change the program to suit their needs.

I hope that the County Council will realize the wisdom in the mayor’s veto of Bill 256.

Lee McIntosh

Naalehu

Redefining marriage

Don Jacobs’ “Defining marriage” letter (Tribune-Herald, July 29) really recommends that a crude and cruel “redefined marriage” would be better for some of our fellow citizens. Here are a few facts about marriage that prove this to be so.

The purpose of marriage is a life-long contract that legalizes the sexual union of a man and woman and legitimizes any children they can produce (I Corinthians 7:2-3,14). The only way to change this is to redefine, or ruin, marriage.

To redefine and legalize the life-long sexual relationship of marriage, to include two men or two women, may sound like the right thing to do, but it is actually a cruel thing to allow or encourage for any alleged homosexual couple.

For, you see, though any mature and healthy heterosexual couple can have their own biological children — regardless of whether they’re married or not, or married for decades — a homosexual couple can never have their own biological children, regardless of how long they’re married. Read this paragraph over three times, please!

So, to socially or legally encourage any alleged homosexual couple to enter into such a life-long sexual contract as marriage is to, in effect, say they were born to be, and thus deserve to be, forever childless and without a family.

I don’t call this “loving human beings equally.” I call this ignorant sexual stereotyping and cruel hate speech against fully functional, reproductive (albeit confused) men and women. Only the truth will set them free.

Gerald Wright

Pahoa

 

Rules for posting comments