Photos: Sybil Joins London Gay Pride Parade

July 3, 2011

[Updated] The Bermuda flag, Bermuda shorts, scooters, and a group of Bermudians lead by Mark Anderson – aka Sybil Barrington – could be seen on the streets of London yesterday [July 2], as the group took part in the 2011 London Pride Parade.

AW9J5006

They carried a banner saying ‘LGBT Refugees – No better time for full human rights and equality,” as they marched behind Sybil who was dressed to impress in a floor length figure hugging sequined evening gown, matching heels and tiara.

The tiara was 9″ inches high, encrusted with swarovski stones, and was hand made specifically for Sybil’s London appearance. Sybil was also adorned with a ‘Queen of Bermuda’ sash, and walked the entire route in glamorous 5 inch high heels from Perry Footwear on Queen Street.

sybil barrington london 2011

Sybil – who was named one of the 100 most influential entertainers from around the world in a recent book – was also invited to perform at two of Londons Hottest Clubs – The Hipperdrome and Vauxhall. After the Parade, Sybil said, “As always I represented my country Bermuda with dignity, pride and glamour.”

AW9J4982

The Parade seeks to raise awareness of discrimination and difficulties affecting the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [LGBT] people around the world. Now in its 40th year, the parade is one of the largest of its kind in the world, and attracts an estimated million people each year. This is the third consecutive year Bermudians have particated in a group.

AW9J4923

This was Mr Anderson’s first appearance in the parade, and before going he said, “My reason to do this, is because I’m fighting for every Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender person who was born yesterday, today and will be tomorrow here in Bermuda, that they will not grow up with the hateful prejudices, which I experienced most of my life. I am also fighting for those who live a clandestine gay lifestyle in our country.”

Photos courtesy of Jeffrey Porter, click to enlarge:

- Bernews would like to extend our thanks to Jeffrey Porter for the photos

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, Most Popular, News, News, Parades, Photos

Comments (71)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Articles that link to this one:

  1. Video: Performance By Sybil Barrington & Friends | Bernews.com | November 5, 2013
  1. Morals and Ethics says:

    This is an abomination to GOD

    • Notorious says:

      I bet you would like to lick pon dem. God does the judging, not you and I’m sure your morals and ethics are high right? Not.

      BTW Bernews why is this comment allowed but when I made a comment not even half as bad you edited it out?

      • bernews says:

        Sorry, can’t quite recall which one you mean, was probably legal reasons though. Some things seem small [and are to most people] but can be grey legally, and result in us being bombarded with legal threats.

        • Notorious says:

          It was a joke(cruel) about a person being terminated in the womb by their mother with whom I was arguing with. It had nothing to do with anything legal. But comments about murdering homosexuals are allowed. I see.

          • bernews says:

            Ah, family things yes. We are very careful over family comments, those can end very badly, so we err on the side of caution. Esp any mother references, generally those are a no go.

            We didn’t read it as such, but now rereading it, yes…we can see how it can be taken that way. Edited to reflect. These threads here and on FB we have edit alot anyway, removal of “F’ word slur etc.

            • Notorious says:

              Yeah I kinda figured that. Thanks. I know you guys can’t catch everything and do your best. Keep up the good work. :)

              • bernews says:

                Thanks. We need some type of a flag button for times when we do mess up. We’ve also let through profanity by error in longer posts a few times. Not good.

    • YES MATE! says:

      If God wanted to get rid of them, he would’ve licked fya down pon dem just now, while they were all together. But I guess he doesn’t see “them” as an abomination so he let “them” live. After all the same God that made you made them.

    • Common Sense says:

      I wonder if ‘Morals and Ethics says’ would please go through the complete list of “abominations” as listed in the bible and let us know which he or she believes ishould be enforced. He or she should start with the fact that “every shepherd” is an abomination (Gen 46:34), then move on to such heinous acts as “feet that are quick in running to mischief” and others listed in Proverbs 6 16-18, eating any kind of sea food such as crabs or lobsters or oysters because it is an “abomination” to eat any kind of seafood without fins and scales (Lev 11:10), to be dishonest (Prov 12:22) etc. etc. That should give you a start but there are lots more.

      I am eager to have “Morals and Ethics” explain how ALL abominations are clear abominations to GOD otherwise it makes a mockery of the bible, and then explain how, from a moral point of view, NONE of the other so-called “abominations” are even mentioned from our pulpits every week.

      I challenge you, Morals and Ethics, to explain why there are so many “abominations” (I will gladly provide you with a list of every single one) and then explain to us why for example, we should not condemn St. David’s Island fishermen as abominations because they have been supplying us with crabs and lobsters and conch stew for centuries in clear violation of the abomination clearly stated in Leviticus 11:10.

      When you have finished this simple little exercise and provided us with your reasons for demanding that these abomoinations should all be treated equally, perhaps you should also explain why Sybil should be denied her basic human rights as a fellow human being and not be treated equally from a moral and ethical point of view. I look forward to you imparting your moral and ethical wisdom on these issues. In the meantime you might do what “Just an Idea” suggests and read http://fallwell.com/selective%20quotation.html

      • Organic Bermudian says:

        Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Finally someone speaks out against such prejudice! Not only do we live in a world where INCEST is rampant and ignored by adults close to it then the victim is RE-VICTIMISED by SOCIETY FAMILY and FRIENDS! Not only are the PERPS behaviour JUSTIFIED and RATIONALISED by their peers! Not only do STRAIGHT PEOPLE give birth to GAY children! And SOOOOOOOO much more that we turn a blind eye to but ZEALOTS JUDGE and CONDEMN people who are living their lives even though they are judged by SOCIETY, rejected by FAMILY and threatened with VIOLENCE because of WHO THEY ARE and still live on in said communities WITHOUT support (emotional spiritual nor mental) yet are NOT wishing bad in the lives of the religious folk who want them destroyed! WHERE IS THE LOVE????

  2. BDA says:

    Please !! Get a life!!

  3. Good for Him says:

    Well done guy.

  4. Linda M says:

    Well done. It’s about time people stop judging and remember he who is without sin please standup and throw the first stone. If we were to put sit down and eliminate people from this earth for going against what god says I predict no one in Bermuda especially would be left. Peace

  5. joe says:

    Well done! Be Proud.

  6. Bermudian says:

    WHO GAVE YOU THAT TITLE???

    • Fed Up Bermudian says:

      Oh lighten up. It’s a play on words, for goodness’ sake. Queen is a common derogatory term for a homosexual man, and so…Mark is the self-styled ‘Queen of Bermuda’. It’s done in fun, in part. I really hope there are no ‘queens’ in your own family, how would you treat them???

  7. Fed Up Bermudian says:

    I do love your spirit, Mark/Sybil…anyone who took a second to sit down and talk to you would see what a kind, gentle, courageous soul you are. Many would disagree with your manner of expressing yourself, but you do no harm to others and do a damn sight more than most to promote the peace and love with which we should all be living our lives. That’s what we miss- the ability to relate to one another. And bravo, Linda M. Read Leviticus for all the many things that ancient law said we could and should die for. Honestly…when did Jesus preach against our fellow man again? Right- He didn’t.

  8. WIth Love from London! says:

    I was there and saw most of the parade, and for people could go and judge and think this was a “freak show”…you are sadly wrong. As a heterosexual person that has a open view on humanity. They held a platform that was compelling to all. “Equality”… no matter who you are and what your sexuality is. Had a great day at the PRIDE GAY PARADE…. it was inspiring. And maybe for all those that keep referring to the bible about man & woman were created. This is 2011, people who do not accept people that are different. You are the ones that should be eradicated from this earth first. The presentation also showed that people are killed and tortured becuase they are gay. Its not just diseases that are killing us, its also homophobic people that are cruel and hateful. If you know what “love” is…than you would should openly love those who are gay.

    Kind Regards,

    A Bermudian Heart.

  9. James says:

    Wow, Sybil and Bermuda on the world’s stage. Not sure what to say! I don’t want to judge but I don’t like where the world “seems” to be headed (Decision in NY last week).

    But Mark certainly does “walk the walk”, literally, for that I do admire him.

    • UncleElvis says:

      Really? You don’t like it when people gain protection under the law and equality?

      That’s a shame.

      • James says:

        As I said, I wasn’t sure what to say.

        Marriage is and has always been between a man and woman, nature allows ONLY for a man to impregnate a woman. So marriage between the same sex goes against all that I was taught and believe, therefore I cannot easily endorse it.

        Don’t get me wrong, I feel everyone should have protection and equality. As a matter of fact perhaps homosexuals should have the right to be miserable in marriage just like the rest of us (just kidding).

        I just believe with the change in some state laws (US) and the direction we seem to be headed, what lessons are we teaching and setting for our children? Men with men and women with women is NOT natural and therefore NOT right!

        There is some confusion in my head, which is why I said I wasn’t sure what to say. This is my personal ongoing internal process.

        • UncleElvis says:

          Ok. Thanks for not freaking.

          It seems that some of the confusion is from misinformation.

          Reproduction isn’t a necessary part of marriage. If it were, marriage would occur AFTER the first child is born.
          Also, sterile couples and post-menopausal women can still get married. They can’t get pregnant. Should they have their rights taken away?
          If you were taught that marriage was solely for reproduction, or that it was an essential part of being married, you were misinformed.

          Secondly, you say that it’s not natural, yet we see it in nature all the time in many, many different species.
          Polygamy, multiple partners etc. ARE “natural” (i.e. seen in various other species), but aren’t allowed by our society.
          The “it’s not natural” argument is just plain incorrect.

          Hell, being married for 23 minutes isn’t “natural”, but no one called for quickie divorces to be banned after Britney Spears, did they?

          As for “what lessons we are teaching and setting for our children”?
          I think teaching kids tolerance, to love their fellow man, acceptance and doing what’s right are pretty good lessons, no?

          Now, if the CHURCHES want to ban THEMSELVES from performing gay weddings, then that’s one thing, but that shouldn’t get a say in perpetuating discrimination.

          Wrong is wrong and stopping two people who have managed to be lucky enough to find love in this occasionally cruel world from having the same rights that I have with my wife (and, in the states, there are over 1,000 of them!), just because some biblical laws that no one follows, except for this one, says it’s an abomination? That’s just wrong.

          Spreading ignorance like “It doesn’t happen in nature” is wrong.

          • J Galt says:

            “Now, if the CHURCHES want to ban THEMSELVES from performing gay weddings, then that’s one thing, but that shouldn’t get a say in perpetuating discrimination.”

            So you would be ok with a church refusing to perform a marriage, because the couple are gay?

            Can you explain why, I would be interested in your reasoning.

            • UncleElvis says:

              Because they’re not the government.

              They are under no obligation to provide that service, just as they are under no obligation to give me, an atheist, the sacrament.

              The government is supposed to be there for ALL citizens.

              Well done with the cherry picking, by the way. Please. Don’t go out of your way to comment on anything else I’ve said.

              • J Galt says:

                A homeowner is not the government, does that mean they are under no obligation to rent to a gay couple?

                If as you stated the church has no obligation, the logical question to ask would be why should a hotel, restaurant or indvidual be obliged or held to different standard?

                • UncleElvis says:

                  And here we go.

                  We’ve had this conversation, Galt. Why do you keep trying to drag it out? You know how it’s going to go.

                  You compare apples and oranges with the most tenuous logic, just to support your “I should be allowed to do whatever I want” position.

                  You can’t. Get over it.

                  Any point I make to explain why they’re different will be ignored, so I’m not even going to bother.

                  We’ve danced this dance too many times. I’m bored of it.

                  • J Galt says:

                    You are incorrectly suggesting that I am comparing apples and oranges, I am comparing fruits or more to the point discrimination.

                    You have stated that the Church has no obligation to provide service to a gay couple (discrimination), by your reasoning (they are not the government) then the same should be true for a guest house not being obliged to provide service to a gay couple (discrimination).

                    I know you have a problem with the latter and I would like to understand why you view the former, form of discrimination as acceptable.

                    • UncleElvis says:

                      And I’ve stated my case, both here and elsewhere, at other times. You KNOW where I stand on this.

                      I’m not sure why you feel the need to try to drag this up again and again.

                      You ARE comparing apples (a private group offering a service only to members of that group that only affects members of that group) to oranges (a group or individual offering a service to the public).

                      THAT is the difference.

                • UncleElvis says:

                  And we’re not talking about renting to people.

                  We’re talking about the church performing a marriage.
                  There are no rights involved with this. It’s just a piece of paper and “the eyes of the Lord”. Outside of the church, what they do there has no bearing.

                  Completely different from denying rent because of discrimination.

                  But I’m sure you’ll ignore that.

                  • UncleElvis says:

                    and, of course, I was correct.

                    • J Galt says:

                      I am unable to reply to your post above, so I will do so here.

                      “We’re talking about the church performing a marriage.
                      There are no rights involved with this. It’s just a piece of paper and “the eyes of the Lord”. Outside of the church, what they do there has no bearing.”

                      Marriage is not just a piece of paper, it is recognized by our governemnt (and others) and rewards are granted i.e. right to work and reside in Bermuda, citizenship, etc… The only people able to perform marriages are ministers who have to be licensed by the Government, (the sole exception to ministers is the Registrar of Marriages)

                      So to suggest that it is a service that only affects members of that group is false.

                      “You ARE comparing apples (a private group offering a service only to members of that group that only affects members of that group) to oranges (a group or individual offering a service to the public).”

                      Bear with me here I want to understand you , it seems to me that you are justifying discrimination,(which you are normally against)

                      Why do you think it is ok for a private group to discriminate?

                      What makes the church a private group?

                    • UncleElvis says:

                      What happens in the church is NOT the legal side of it.
                      There IS legal stuff that happens, but that doesn’t HAVE to happen there. It’s an added bonus FOR the church.
                      So to suggest that it is a service that only effects members of that group IS, in fact, correct.

                      It may SEEM that I am saying that, but I’m not.

                      Just like all the other times you’ve tried this silly little game.

                      You WANT me to be saying that, and you redefine things that I’m saying and you do, in fact, as you did here, saying that the church side of marriage is the legal stuff, which it isn’t, as you can, in fact, get married by the Registrar, make stuff up, whole cloth, just to make that point.

                      As I’ve said, we’ve had this conversation many times before and it always goes like this and I’m bored of it.

                      I’ve said what I need to say and made my point the best I can. You putting words in my mouth isn’t going to change what I’ve written…

                      so have a great day.

                    • Ernest says:

                      I believe that all Galt has done is point out the inconsistencies in your flawed attempts at logic.

                      You spout random nonsense and then try to back it up with reasoned thought. May I suggest you try starting with good sense and reason and let that guide you to a sensible conclusion. You stated:

                      “if the CHURCHES want to ban THEMSELVES from performing gay weddings, then that’s one thing”

                      Why should the church be above reproach? If you want to stop the government from discriminating and stop the individual then why not the church? Your reason:

                      “a private group offering a service only to members of that group that only affects members of that group”

                      Does this mean that a private club, like the Spanish Point Boat Club, should be allowed to discriminate?

                      I would appreciate if you could clarify your logic on this one, I was under the impression that you were against discrimination, but it seems that sometimes it is ok to you.

                    • UncleElvis says:

                      And, to prove my point, here comes “Ernest Hemingway” to defend Galt with personal attacks are a reprise of exactly what Galt said.
                      Same old same.

                      It’s getting boring.
                      I’ve made my point, addressed your questions and explained myself. If you want to keep trying to play this game, leave me out of it.

                    • Ernest says:

                      UncleElvis:

                      I don’t beleive you have addressed the point clearly. Could you please answer the following to the best of your abilities:

                      1. Do you think the church should be allowed to turn away a homosexual couple that want to be married?

                      2. Do you think that it is discimination if they do?

                    • J Galt says:

                      I don’t think he is going to answer you Ernest, It is pretty apparent that when he said

                      “if the CHURCHES want to ban THEMSELVES from performing gay weddings, then that’s one thing”

                      that’s discrimination and his standing by that statement is him trying to justify discrimination.

                      When asked why he thought this form of discrimination is ok he said
                      “Because they’re not the government.” and there for

                      “They are under no obligation to provide that service,”

                      when it was pointed out that individuals, bars and hotels are not the government should they be free to refuse service to gays, he incorrectly claims that I am comparing apples and organges, (he uses the false analogy claim a lot, at first I thought he was unwilling to, but over the years I have to conclude that he is unable to grasp simple analogies)

                      Ernest my learned friend as you know when analogies are comparing two different things there are always some attributes they do not share, it is tempting to try to disqualify the analogy with the difference. He is failing to ensure that the difference is relevant to the analogy.

                      Elvis writes

                      “You ARE comparing apples (a private group offering a service only to members of that group that only affects members of that group) to oranges (a group or individual offering a service to the public).

                      THAT is the difference.”

                      even though It was pointed out that the only people who can perform marriages are ministers who are licensed by the Government (the only exception is the Registar of Marriages) so to make the claim that it will only affect members of that group is false, they have a near monopoly on marriage and all the rights that go with it.

                      Elvis claims that

                      “We’re talking about the church performing a marriage.
                      There are no rights involved with this. It’s just a piece of paper and “the eyes of the Lord”. Outside of the church, what they do there has no bearing.”

                      but he writes to someone else on this very thread

                      “What this is about is rights. A person’s right to have a say in their loved one’s health care if there’s an accident. Inheritance rights. Everything that comes with marriage. In the states, there are over 1000 rights that aren’t available to gay couples.”

                      Even if we disregard all of this and go with the simple question you asked in response to Elvis saying
                      “a private group offering a service only to members of that group that only affects members of that group”

                      “Does this mean that a private club, like the Spanish Point Boat Club, should be allowed to discriminate? “

                      Does he answer the question? No, he claims he made his point (he didn’t), and addressed the questions (must have gotten the zip code wrong) and explained himself. (if he would just answer your three questions I think it would all be pretty clear)

                      I feel he is bowing out because he realizes what he said was wrong, we have shown everyone the flaws in his attempts at logic. It was a mistake to say what he said and an even bigger one to try and defend it, especially since he claims to be anti-discrimination.

                      I just wish as one gentleman to another he would lay down the King, the position is indefensible, admit defeat, and then exit stage left wiser and with dignity.

                      Well poor form on his part will not reflect on me I shall be magnanimous in yet another victory.

                      Ernest any thoughts?

                    • Ernest says:

                      @Galt

                      Thank you Mr. Galt, I am aware of the power and proper usage of analogies, as any high school graduate would be.
                      However, I do not share your mastery at maintaining magnanimity.

                      @UncleElvis

                      You have turned your back on a debate in progress.
                      You have refused to answer simple straightforward questions which would help clarify your position.
                      Instead you dance around the subject, claiming to have answered questions that you have not.
                      Claiming that the issue has been resolved when clearly it isn’t.
                      To walk away from the debate in this fashion is just rude.
                      I find your support for discrimination against homosexuals irreconcilable with your previous claims to be against that which you now espouse.
                      I am compelled to call you out every time you write something hypocritical.

                      Consider this thread locked!

                      And to you I say, “Good day, sir!”

                    • UncleElvis says:

                      Annnnd the dance continues with you two playing the same nonsense games as always, looking only to denounce someone that’s disagreed with you in the past, ignoring any other point, other than the ones you can pick at, accusing me of your own behaviour, ignoring things I’ve already said…

                      All your questions were already answered, but not in a way you liked, so you ignored the answers.

                      You have an agenda and a story to tell and an obvious vendetta against me.
                      Else Hemingway would post elsewhere, adding to other conversations.
                      He doesn’t. Instead, he only pops out from under his rock to back up Galt when Galt gets desperate.
                      How many times has this happened?
                      Oh, yeah. EVERY time you play this stupid game.

                      Pathetic.

                    • J Galt says:

                      Ernest, Elvis has claimed that “All your questions were already answered, but not in a way you liked, so you ignored the answers.”

                      I’m having difficulty locating where he answered your questions did he email you the answers?

                      How did he answer these?

                      “Does this mean that a private club, like the Spanish Point Boat Club, should be allowed to discriminate?”

                      “Do you think the church should be allowed to turn away a homosexual couple that want to be married?”

                      “Do you think that it is discimination if they do?”

                      As for the rest of his post you will notice that all he does is attempt to attack us and not the argument put forward.

                      I’ll take the high road and ignore the ad hominems except this one, you will excuse me please as I feel this slight must be addressed.

                      “..ignoring any other point, other than the ones you can pick at..”

                      Elvis you made the statement

                      “if the CHURCHES want to ban THEMSELVES from performing gay weddings, then that’s one thing”

                      Retract or defend it, don’t get upset because someone has taken you to task over something you have written and foolishly tried to unsuccessfully defend.

                    • Ernest says:

                      No Galt, my questions were not answered. From UncleElvis’s last two posts, which contributed nothing to the discussion, I can only assume that he continues to stand by his assertion that it is ok for the church to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation for the reason that the church is “a service that only [a]ffects members of that group.”

                      I am as surprised as you to learn this, as I thought that UncleElvis was very much against discrimination. To me, this assertion is in direct conflict with his professed stance against discrimination. The church being no different from a private club and the smallest private club being the individual, one can only summize that either UncleElvis does not realize the hypocracy of his own statement, or is comfortable with it.

                    • J Galt says:

                      “I am as surprised as you to learn this, as I thought that UncleElvis was very much against discrimination. To me, this assertion is in direct conflict with his professed stance against discrimination. ”

                      Ernest my well-informed friend, when I think about it, I’m not surprised, Elvis has demonstrated this before with his willingness to infringe on an individual’s rights if that individual happens to hold beliefs he doesn’t agree with.

                      @Elvis

                      “All your questions were already answered, but not in a way you liked, so you ignored the answers.”

                      1. Do you think the church should be allowed to turn away a homosexual couple that want to be married?

                      2. Do you think that it is discimination if they do?

                      3. Should a private club, like the Spanish Point Boat Club, be allowed to turn away a homosexual couple?

          • James says:

            Well Uncle Elvis, would you want your spouse to have several other “partners” as you have stated other species have? I wouldn’t think so. This would be “unatural” to you, just as men and women marrying within their own sex is to me, see, its simple.

            You went a little too deep for me. All I stated is that our history and upbringing teach us that a man and woman are the only ones to marry. This is what I believe and I also think that it shouldn’t be changed.

            I am tolerant, I am not homophobic at all. I believe that we as people should be allowed to do what we please as long as it doesn’t break the law (both man and God’s) and/or hurt anyone. What you do in the privacy or your own home or with your partner is up to you? But why must I be asked to accept a change in law to accomodate what the majority of society doesn’t agree with? Why must the majority conform and change for a minority?

            We can teach our children tolerance without exposing them to homosexuality. My mother taught me tolerance and at 44 years old I still honor those lessons taught by her. Children are very impressionable, I just think it would be wrong to show them more and more examples of this unatural part of humanity.

            Men and women were designed to have sex with each other, not within their same sex. If that were not the case then you would see many men walking around pregnant, only then would I agree with you that homosexuality IS natural!

            As I stated, its an ongoing thought process for me. I’m just not sure at all about same sex marriages, at this point I disagree with the whole notion.

            • UncleElvis says:

              Wow…
              you certainly extrapolated to somewhere else.

              The things you mention in the first bit wouldn’t be “unnatural” to me, they’re just not something I’m into.
              However, if a large part of the community WAS into it and were trying to do something to change it, I wouldn’t fall back on a false argument to try to oppose it. (I actually wouldn’t try to oppose it, but that’s another story…)

              You say “as long as it doesn’t break the law (both man and God’s)…”

              I have to ask. “Who’s God?” Yours? Allah? Jehovah?
              What about folks like me that don’t believe in God? Do we still have to follow “God’s Law”?
              And which laws? The Levitical ones? Those have been addressed.

              You ask “But why must I be asked to accept a change in law to accomodate what the majority of society doesn’t agree with? Why must the majority conform and change for a minority?”

              First off, if these laws are going through, the majority DOES agree with them. That’s the way democracy works.
              Secondly, do you have ANY evidence that shows that “the majority of society doesn’t agree with” this? Any at all?
              And finally, this whole section… you don’t see the irony of it in our post-slavery, post-segregation society? Can’t you hear these same arguments being made about segregation? “Why must the majority conform and change for a minority?”

              What this is about is rights. A person’s right to have a say in their loved one’s health care if there’s an accident. Inheritance rights. Everything that comes with marriage. In the states, there are over 1000 rights that aren’t available to gay couples.

              And again, back to the “Men should be with women” thing.
              First off, we weren’t “designed”.
              Secondly, sex is not entirely about reproduction, neither is marriage, as I’ve said before and you seem to have ignored.
              If it was, then sterile couples should be banned from marrying, as should post-menopausal women and, heck, folks that just don’t want to have kids.

              You keep using the word “Unnatural” (or “unatural”…), yet you haven’t shown how it’s “unnatural”, just how it’s against what YOU believe.

              There’s no evidence that “impressionable children” turn gay because they’ve been shown “more and more examples” of homosexuality.

              You seem pretty open minded. I applaud and respect you for that.
              It just seems to me that you are basing your position on things you’ve thought up, rather than actual facts.
              I urge you to read up on it. Talk to people. Talk to gay people about who they are, who they love, why they want and need this.
              Please.

              • James says:

                Uncle Elvis, you’d be surprised at some of the conversations I’ve had with some of my gay friends. Some took place while drunk, so you can imagine how frank the questions were. The answers were even more so.

                I can understand the who, what, when, and why of their/your perspective. I just happen to disagree with it, I don’t think its right. But at the same time I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend your RIGHT to do as you wish, because you do have that right in today’s society (again, this is my internal debate).

                Let me explain my usage of the word unatural. It is unatural for a man to have sex with another man, it is unatural for a woman to have sex with another woman. Men were designed/made to have sex with women, this is my belief and I will never change my mind about that. Until the biology of the human races changes I will continue to call homosexuality unatural. I hope that is enough of an explanation for my usage of the word.

                You are another person whom I will just have to agree to disagree with. I’ve not called you names, nor will I. We just have different beliefs, which is fine, it makes the world an interesting place to live in. I just do not want or be expected to change/conform my life because you and others have chosen to live differently than I. I’m not asking you to change anything about your life, why am I being asked to accept change in mine.

                Oh, one last thing. While the New York State Senate voted in favor of this bill, I still believe it was NOT the majority vote of the people of the state of New York. It was NOT part of an election platform or put to the residents to vote on. Therefore I believe it is NOT an acurate reflection of how the people of the state feel about this issue. But the democratic process was followed, as you stated.

                I guess we will see how this all works out one day.

        • Common Sense says:

          Hi James,

          I have to agree that you are always entitled to your opinion, and it will invariably be based on what you have been taught and what you believe. However, I personally believe that we now know far more about human sexuality than our ancestors did thousands of years ago when they started to write down what they truly believed were the best rules to live by based on their understanding of the world. For example, we now know that some human beings are born with a condition that we call “intersexed”. These fellow human beings include chimerics (please look it up on the internet) who are born with two sets of DNA which can sometimes be half male and half female. Oprah Winfrey did a great show on this subject and followed it up with a fascinating show on babies who were born with unusual sexual organs – usually baby boys with tiny penises. Excuse me for using the word, but it is necessary in this context. For more than 40 years medical professionals decided that the best treatment for these babies was to give them a sex change operation as early as possible – remove their tiny organs, construct female genitalia for them – and raise them as girls (It is estimated that 1 in 2,000 babies are now born with this condition) . Only trouble is that the vast majority had major problems with their engineered sex change over which they had no control. The medical profession now denounces this procedure, but many of these folks still live amongst us and continue have issues regarding their sexuality.

          The reason I mention such cases involving our fellow human beings is that in my humble view we ALL should enjoy equal human rights, and that includes those who are different from the majority of us whether their differences are skin colour, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or physical or mental impairments etc. etc.

          All of these people are real people with feelings and emotions, and they should all be entitled to equal treatment. Some of the writers on this blog get hung up on the word “abomination” and they quote the bible with regard to homosexuality, but please note that they all studiously avoid all of the other “abominations” because they are at a loss to explain why, for example, we would label St. David’s Island fishermen as “abominators” because they sell crabs, lobsters and make conch stew. If this is puzzling to you please review all the abominations listed in the bible and see if you can figure out which one this refers to, and how many would now stand the test of time and still be viewed as “abominations”

          I hear you when you say that there is some confusion in your head and that you are going through a personal ongoing internal process. I would sincerely urge you to avoid accepting without question what we may have been taught for generations, often by our religious leaders, and open your mind to what modern science is discovering about issues such as sexuality. 400 years ago the Church branded Galileo a heretic for having the audacity to claim that the earth was spinning around the sun (this completely contradicted the church’s interpretation of God’s word in the bible). We have moved on since then but it is only recently that the Pope formally apologized for this error!

          There are so many around us who will never change their views, but in your case James, I’d like to think that you will evolve your thinking and keep an open mind. Above all, please make sure to retain your belief that “everyone should have protection and equality”. That is a good thing.

          • James says:

            Common sense, while I might evolve my thinking, I am still grounded on my foundation. And that foundation finds it very hard to accept same sex marriage. That may not make sense, since I also believe people have the right to do as they want as long as they do not break the law or don’t hurt anyone, as well as I will protect anyone’s right to do as they please, even though I may not agree with WHAT they do (my internal struggle).

            I don’t know the bible well enough to get into the abomination portion of this debate, hell I’ve broken enough biblical rules myself, so I won’t go there.

            At the end of the day, at least this day, I stand where I stand. This whole thing feels very unatural and wrong to me. Perhaps some evolution of my mind will take place, but for now we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I respect your position and it seems as if you respect mine, I guess we’ll see how this pans out some day.

  10. will says:

    Morals and Ethics…you are a shallow, judgemental, horrid a$#hole…i aint censoring that because you truly are an AS%HOLE! you preach murder, so where’s your moral and ethics now? you are an ignorant individual who has no use in todays world except as a bigot. stop reading the fictitious bible and go out and learn to love instead of hate…once again an A#SHOLE..along with anyone else on here who preaches hatred and violence untoward your fellow man, especially another Bermudian citizen, SHAME ON YOU!

    • Truth (Original) says:

      Those are some pretty harsh words yourself…..

  11. Shut Yo Mouth... says:

    Much rather see Sybil parading in London than Ole Ewart ,than again I bet Ewarts pissed that it wasn’t him … At least Sybils on his/her own dime …

  12. Allison says:

    I don’t know why people worry about what other people do in their personal lives. He’s not judging you for being an ignorant homophobic. I’ve been on his bus and his vibe is such a positive one, something us “perfect” heterosexuals can definitely learn from. Do you Mark and let theses hatas keep hatin

    • hmmm says:

      agreed. my friend who was visiting bermuda for the first time explored mostly by bus. she spoke very highly of mr. anderson’s manners and caring attitude.

  13. Dame Edna says:

    For the most part , the only people who spend so much time hating with all their hostility and murderous thoughts on these harmless, ‘different’ individuals are people who have a real and true problem with their own identities.

    (They’ll never admit it though)

  14. Mama Mia says:

    y’all need to get over yourselves. I think it’s remarkable how just one person can lift spirits of many just by being himself and expressing himself. I wish I were more like Sybill.

  15. Obadiah says:

    I’d never understand the hatred and evil comments about gay people. There are so many qualities that make up a human being. Anyone thats come in contact with Sybil would know that he has nothing but postives vibes AT ALL TIMES!!!!

    Stop for a minute and get pass what he looks like, take a minute to take in what you see. What he does do with his personnel life should be irrelevant. Sybil I’m very proud of you,B AS U Are!!!!!! God loves us all!!!!!!!!! Some Bermudians need to travel a bit to broaden their horizons,and open up their tiny minds!!!!!!

    Positve thoughts draw positive results!!!!!

  16. bermyshotta says:

    To all those “non-homophobic” ppl … everyone is entitled to der opinion REGARDLESS of whetha u like it or not. so by callin dem hatas or whatever is equally as bad even if it ain’t a terrible word so get ova urselves. stop bein hypocrites…and STOP tryna push ya opinions/beliefs on ppl’s who’s r different. str8!

    • Common Sense says:

      bermyshotta:
      While I can agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion it does not entitle them to deny others their basic human rights. If we take an extreme example, some religious fundamentalists might still argue that adultery is not only sinful but is punishable by death (the bible even lays down the method of killing adulterers). I think it would be rather difficult in this 21st century to argue that if one holds the opinion that adulterers should be stoned to death one should be able to openly express that opinion and encourage others to carry out the sentence. Please note that adultery is not a crime, and neither is homosexuality.

      A person such as “Morals and Ethics says” that, “this (presumably taking part in a Gay Pride Parade) is an abomination to God”. Do you think he or she meant that it a loving way, or in a hateful way? Is he or she perfectly entitled to express this view and to encourage or incite hatred towards those who are not heterosexuals? In my view that would be a clear breach of their human rights.

      I have issued a challenge to “Morals and Ethics says” to explain his position as it relates to ALL of the so-called “abominations” listed in the bible to that we can readily understand and appreciate where he or she is coming from. I’m not trying to push my beliefs on others, but I strongly suspect that he or she would be at a complete loss to rationally explain most or all of the other “abominations” in today’s world. For that reason he might call himself “Morals and Ethics” but it might just be a smokescreen for the kind of hatred and contempt that gays have felt for generations. I patiently await a rational response from “Morals and Ethics say”.

    • UncleElvis says:

      So… they’re entitled to their opinion, but those that call them names aren’t?

      Why is only one side allowed to express their opinion?

      Oh, and when you say “STOP tryna push ya opinions/beliefs on ppl’s who’s r different.”, are you talking about the, as you call them, “non-homophobic” ppl”, or those religious bigots that have been pushing their opinions and beliefs on “ppl’s who’s r different” for decades and decades?

      Just curious as to which pushing of opinion is ok with you…

  17. global village says:

    Its really amazing reading these views above. Lest we forget, Bermuda just got more PR at this event than those expensive Business Bsermuda delegations that fleet around the world at great expense.

    There are so many real issues in Bermuda and you are all hot and bothered about Gay Rights, funny, as u forget your child or friends could be gay.

    Yes I am God fearing, but also part of the new Global Village coming to an economy near you soon.

  18. Notnice at all says:

    All you people make me sick. Where does man think he can go around and make up rules as he goes. This is an abomination. Not just to GOD but to the human race. Lets look at it from a scientific point of view instead of religion. (Cause religion a lot of the times doesnt hold water) If everyone was gay what would happen to the world? and the survey says the destruction of mankind. A man prancing around in Make up and a dress is healthy for you all’s kids to see? Im not saying you cant be gay and chose your lifestyle. If you want to then by all means go ahead. Who am i to say you going to hell. Its not my place to say that, however just like gays can have a parade to show you how gay they are, i.e. bunch of drag queens dancing on a float to its raining men, I as a heterosexual should be able to express my opinion and say its wrong whether it be morally or physically or mentally, ITS MY OPINION. Im tired of ppl saying you all are prejudice just because ppl dont like what they do. I may like the person but I dont have to agree with their lifestyle.

    • Pomegranate says:

      That’s “might like”, unless you’re giving yourself permission. For example: “I might like the idiot but I don’t have to approve of his idiocy.”

    • UncleElvis says:

      No one, EVER, has said that everyone should be gay. Not once.
      That’s just something you made up.

      The “abomination” thing has already been addressed and debunked.

      And you’re absolutely right. You ARE allowed to say that. You’re allowed to express your opinion. No one is stopping you.

      Just remember that we’re allowed to express ours when we say that you’re an ignorant, prejudiced bigot.

      You’re more than able to say everything you say.
      What you shouldn’t be able to do is be allowed to discriminate against people.
      You’re allowed to do that right now. That’s WAY more wrong than a “bunch of drag queens dancing on a float to its raining men”… in fact, I would go so far as to say that it’s “an abomination”.

      • Think about it says:

        I really don’t understand when these bigots use the argument that it’s confusing for children when they see things like men dressing as women and being homosexual. I have said it once, and I will say it again- “No one chooses to be gay.” You are born gay. No straight man or woman just wakes up one day and thinks to themselves that they want to try the same sex, it doesn’t happen like that. So with that being said, what damage will it do to children to see that?

  19. Experience comprises illusions lost says:

    Sybil – your courage speaks volumes. I applaud you for your ability to rise above the hateful judgement that I know you encounter on a regular basis.

    I admire the fact that despite the unfortunately controversial nature of your beliefs – you have no problem standing by them.

    Keep smiling baby – you’re gorgeous! There are people who notice what you are doing and support you 100%! By letting your light shine, you are giving others permission to do the same :)

  20. joe says:

    So Sybil and her entourage parade through the streets of London for 100,000s to see and cheer on. Pictures were taken and sent around the world. In effect, millions will see the name Bermuda and lament the inequality and ignorance, but perhaps also recall it as a place of beauty. This small group, which cost us nothing, has done more to promote Bermuda around the world than the Lederene’s last junket to Brussels with her entourage, costing thousands.
    That people here still try to argue the religious points for/against gay rights simple underscores Bermuda’s social backwardness. It is no wonder black males drop out; violence, wife beating, alcoholism, single parents, and disrespect are the norm. And of course, at the route of it all is our hypocrisy -perhaps a Victorian hangover- yet we deny rights even when a minister responsible for such rights is openly gay. Guess it’s who you know. Maybe that’s why Renee Webb is back in town!

  21. Yes I says:

    Next!

  22. ℮4Ẽχußзŕąήce™ says:

    Good grief!!!

  23. ℮4Ẽχußзŕąήce™ says:

    @ Joe-

    You state all the negative of black males. Let me assure you there are more black males that are making a difference on this island than those that are creating problems.

    These are the real issues that need to be addressed. This to me is not news worthy!