Donal Smith: “I Would Like To Offer My Apology”

September 18, 2013

Donal Smith BermudaDeputy Mayor Donal Smith has apologised for his recent comments, saying, “To all those persons who were affected in this way, I would like to offer my apologies.”

Mr Smith came under fire after his appearance on The Issues television show with host Richard Smith, during which he was reported to have grouped gays with “freaks” and claimed anyone who supports same sex marriage is “condemned.”

The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda said it was an “inappropriate way for an elected official to speak about anyone,” while Minister of Home Affairs Michael Fahy said that Mr Smith’s comments were “saddening, regrettable and just plain deplorable” and that he should issue a public apology.

Mayor of Hamilton Graeme Outerbridge moved to distance the City, saying the comments by Mr Smith are “his own opinions and thoughts and in no way reflect the thinking and sentiments of the Council of the City of Hamilton.”

Speaking to ZBM News yesterday, Mr Smith — who is in Colombia — said: “I am overseas on Corporation of Hamilton business and I haven’t been able to hear from those persons that were hurt by my comment as I would have heard from if I was at home.

“However, I have heard directly from my family members and friends who have impressed upon me the level of anguish and pain that my comments caused. To all those persons who were affected in this way, I would like to offer my apologies…yeah. In addition, when I return I will speak to my constituents and hear their views of my comments.”

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (324)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Articles that link to this one:

  1. “Significant” Contribution Of International Business | Bernews.com | September 20, 2013
  1. Sandy Bottom says:

    What good is an “apology”? We all know what he is.

    He needs to come clean about his past. And resign.

    • Question says:

      So where is my friend, Mike Hind? This is a baseless opinion – - where is the call for Evidence? Mike? Are you there?

      Question:

      Why is it ok to post this baseless opinion about Mr. Smith’s “coming clean about his past” but not ok to post opinions about others?

      Q (waiting for that reply, Mike H)

      • Mike Hind says:

        Considering it’s first thing in the morning for me? Calm down!
        I know you think you’ve got a dig against me and are excited like a kid on Christmas morning, but take a breath.
        It’s nice to be so wanted, though, I gotta say.

        Sandy, “Question” is right. The “come clean about his past” thing?
        I’m gonna have to ask you to back that up.

        (Happy, “Question”? Or did you think I wouldn’t ask?)

        • Dear friend says:

          MIke are you gay?

          • Dear friend says:

            because you make statements to question which sound very much like you may be a homosexual.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Wow. You’re stooping low.

              Not that it’s ANY of your business in any way, shape or form, but now, I am not gay.
              I am an advocate and supporter of equal rights and fairness and equality.

              You, however, are a racist.

              • Dear friend says:

                lol. mike you were hurt along time ago. you deny racism and advocate for males to have sex with males.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  None of that is true.
                  When have I denied racism? Never.
                  You are a liar.

                  Please try to rise above your hate and find an ounce of honesty.

            • Tank Rain says:

              Is this like a “Who ever smelt it, dealt it” situation?

              • Mike Hind says:

                Nah, it’s a “This guy keeps making me look like an idiot, so I’m going to say ANYTHING to try to denounce him…” thing.

        • Question says:

          Mike Hind:

          No dig sir – - I am just glad that you require the same from all – - will even use one of your favourite words – “equality”.

          Q

          • Mike Hind says:

            It IS one of my favorite words. It’s something I truly believe in.

            And I do expect the same from everyone. I know it’s hard to believe, but I AM just asking for honesty in our discussions. That’s my sole agenda.

    • Out of flight says:

      Let’s get the facts about his record. Is there one? After all he started throwing stones first.

  2. Um Um Like says:

    Great! Now resign, and take that useless photographer with you!

  3. Hmmm says:

    His apology makes no sense. He hasn’t apologised for what he said , he apologised if you were affected ? Resign NOW. COH business…..full disclosure and proof of exactly what business is being conducte in Columbia please.

    • Hmmm says:

      “I would like to offer my apologies”

      yes, he would LIKE to offer an apology, it is not actually therefore an apology.

      Bernews report said he apologised…but his words are not an apology.

      When he does apologise, he needs to fully explain what he did wrong, how it is wholly unacceptable for a person in his position, how he will make amends going forward and that there is no other option, but to resign.

  4. Dear friend says:

    So now you want blood!
    The guy has done the right thing and apologized for causing anguish. Can you do the right thing and forgive him or is that not apart of your moral code?

    • longtail says:

      Hmmm is correct. He has NOT apologized to IB as a whole, he has NOT apologized to the many (gay and straight alike) who were offended by his comments, he has NOT rethought his prejudiced viewpoint nor has he withdrawn or offered an apology for what he said: he has only said ‘I’m sorry’ to those who were specifically affected. Hollow words indeed.

    • Mike Hind says:

      So, now we have a moral code?
      Yesterday, you were saying that, because of the colour of our skin, we had none. You were calling for people to stand up against white people.
      Now we have a moral code?

      Which is it?

      • Dear friend says:

        You said you have a moral code that is different from mine. So which is it. Do you or dont you? I never said that white people dont have a moral code but your culture has a code that allows for this abomination that our culture deplores. Pay attention and stop grabbing for straws. He has apologized what more do you blood thirsty reprobates want?

        • Mike Hind says:

          You’re a twisted little person, aren’t you?

          YOU are the one that claimed that white folks didn’t have a moral code, now you’re saying they do. MY position has never changed. Yours has. And now you’re trying to twist out of it.

          And “Blood thirsty reprobates”? Nice.

          Just a q:

          Is there any reason to oppose equal rights, marriage equality or even homosexuality in general that doesn’t involve other people following the rules of your religion?

          • Dear friend says:

            You are so sad Mike. I see why people dont like you. Sad.

            • Mike Hind says:

              This has to be the most pathetic post you’ve put up to date.

              I note you STILL haven’t answered the question.

              Interesting.

            • glue says:

              I LOVE MIKE HIND! He doesn’t hide behind a fake name like everyone else here. He is not mean. He does not judge. He believes in equality and he is not afraid to stand up for it. I have always liked the guy but I admire him even more for having the patience to debate with so many hateful people on here.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Very kind of you to say… but shhh… according to Dear friend, people don’t like me. We wouldn’t want to burst their bubble.

                • Dear friend says:

                  mike stop posting under different names to support your self! So childish.

                  • Zombie Apocalypse says:

                    Mike is a thoughtful commenter and runs circles around many of the people here, many of whom can’t seem to present any cogent argument at all.

                    I’ve also seen him argue vehemently for things like affirmative action. I disagreed with him, but it’s interesting that now he’s facing criticism for his defence of equality.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    I’m not. You’re wrong… again.

                    Please stop lying.

                  • Toodle-oo says:

                    Dear friend , oh dear ,

                    If you think Mike H is posting under different names you probably think Betty Trump is only one person !

                • Bermewjan says:

                  Yay, Mike!

                  Standing up for equality in the face of the hatemongers.

                  Good man!

            • Come Correct says:

              Why didn’t you answer the question?

            • Commenter says:

              I know Mike Hind personally and can tell you that he is an A+ guy.

              DITTO, glue!

              And you know what’s sad? Half-assed apologies.
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xJXKYL8pU

  5. Not Enough says:

    Sad so sad! Bermuda continues to amaze me with its backwards think on such sensitive issue. Why is it church folk can uphold a pedophile, cheating spouse, abusive parent and drug dealers when they cause more damage to individual lives but stand and condemn another group who choose to live their lives without damaging others??

    Who is this God that you serve that blinds you of your own misgivings yet fuels the fire of JUDGEMENT on a gay person??

    • Ya got me Rollin says:

      So only church or religious folk detest homosexuality?

      • Mike Hind says:

        What reason is there to oppose equal rights and marriage equality that doesn’t involve people following the rules of someone else’s religion?

        Do you hear a lot of atheists calling for people to be denied equal rights?

        • Question says:

          Question:

          Why would you hear that when atheists do not believe in anything? Why would they call for equal rights if they choose not to be believe in anything?

          Q

          • Mike Hind says:

            You really have no understanding of anything, do you?

            Atheists believe in a lot of things… just not the same things you do.

            Or, as they say, “We’re all atheists, really. I just believe in one less god than you do.”

          • Commenter says:

            a·the·ist
            ˈāTHēˌist/
            noun
            a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

            Not believing in God does not equate to not believing in ANYTHING.

            Read about it: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq

            BTW I am not an atheist. Just a fan of accuracy.

          • Bermewjan says:

            Or even better, give yourself a reality check and an education at the same time. Watch:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk

    • Joonya says:

      Agreed, well said. The HYPOCRITICAL church mafia in Bermuda must go!

      • Mike Hind says:

        They don’t have to go, they just have to stop demanding that people follow the rules of THEIR religion.

    • Question says:

      Evidence?

      Q

      • Mike Hind says:

        What are you asking for evidence on?

        (Or are you just trying to be clever and make fun of me? See, the difference is, I ask for evidence of baseless claims.)

        Or are you asking for evidence of “Why is it church folk can uphold a pedophile, cheating spouse, abusive parent and drug dealers…”?

        Because, if you are, you REALLY haven’t been paying attention, like AT ALL.

        • Question says:

          MH:

          My question was directed at the baseless claims of Not Enough – yes. I want information – - no, I want FACTS of their claim that “church folk can uphold a pedophile, cheating spouse, abusive parent and drug dealers.”

          This is a generalization which, you know full well, is unacceptable in intelligent discourse.

          Yes, we can admit that certain members of faith based organizations “fall short” of their mandates/rules – BUT to say “church folk” is too general and misleading – - Mike, you are smart enough to know that – honestly.

          If they were speaking specifics, we would not have asked the question, so I say unto you:

          “Where is the evidence?”

          Q

          • Mike Hind says:

            Church folk HAVE upheld paedophiles (did you miss the scandals in the Catholic church?)
            Cheating spouses are not only not shunned by churches, they’re accepted and allowed in, even if they continue to do it.
            Abusive parents? Are you seriously doubting that church folks have supported and “upheld” abusive parents?
            Drug dealers… Ok. I’ll give you that one. I can’t think of one off the top of my head.

            • Question says:

              All general statements Mike. And if you read my post correctly, I did not say that they don’t exist – - I stated that we could not put the blanket covering of “church folk” on everyone – - –

              If I stated that “gay people” all suck , it would be a generalization as NOT ALL of the gay community does not participate in that activity – same thing.

              And for the record, some churches do receive gay members will open arms, with the love of Christ in their hearts.

              Do not group all “church folk” like that – - you do not want “gay people” to be grouped like that, do you?

              Q

              • Mike Hind says:

                They didn’t say “all”. You added that.
                If they HAD said “all”, I would be going after them like a pitbull.

                • Question says:

                  Semantics Mike – seriously?

                  You know what was the intent – period.

                  You are not a stupid man – - don’t start now.

                  Q

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    Not semantics, just not assuming they meant what you think they meant – or want them to mean. They didn’t say “all” you assume they meant it.
                    As an exercise, take the “all” out. Is it still untrue?

                    • Question says:

                      There was no “some” or “a few” – so the intent is clear.

                      Your wish not to believe it does not change the statement.

                      Q

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Now, who’s playing semantics.
                      How about, instead of assuming, you ask what they meant?

                      ‘Cuz it’s pretty ridiculous to assume that they meant “Every single church person is ok with these things.”

            • Logic76 says:

              There have been documented incidences of Catholic priests being involved in high level Italian Mafia drug rings. FBI arrests were made in the late 80′s early 90′s I believe.

    • Dear friend says:

      When did the bible uphold such things. Church folk are not monolithic and anyone can call themselves a church person. As a matter of fact the average person that you walk by in Bermuda believes in the values espoused by the bible. These are ideals that one strives toward. Nowhere in the bible do you find pedophilia supported, adultery or abuse. Why are you now labelling the bible with this slander. Clearly you want your homosexuality to be treated with respect but you dont wish to do the same to bible beleiveing people. You are the one who is judgmental. Just read your rants.

      • Mike Hind says:

        You’re misrepresenting what was said… again.

        “Clearly you want your homosexuality to be treated with respect but you dont wish to do the same to bible beleiveing people.”

        As has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, people would be happy to respect “bible beleiveing people” [sic] as long as they stopped trying to make people follow the rules of THEIR religion.

        How do you keep missing this?

        • Dear friend says:

          You will only respect bible believing people if they do as you say eh? you are confused and need a lot of help.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Nope. I DO respect “bible believing people”.

            I just refuse to accept that I should have to follow the rules of their religion.

            Why SHOULD I have to do that? Do you have an answer for that?

            (The ones demanding that “they do as you say” are your side, not mine.)

  6. Rockfish#1and#2 says:

    The “apology” is not good enough.
    This man should not remain as Deputy Mayor and must resign as soon as he returns.

  7. crackheadsofbermuda says:

    Why apologize for what you say? B*** **** all gays n b***** str8 up
    . Apologize to b*** boy? Helll no
    . —

    • Mike Hind says:

      Perfect name.

    • Commenter says:

      “Crackhead” is right, it seems you have a crack in the part of your brain that produces empathy.

      Kindly take your hate speech elsewhere.

    • DarkSideofTheMoon says:

      How about B*** *** all Bermudians who think they are Jamaican LOL

  8. street wise says:

    IMHO, Smith’s so-called apology was arrogant and insincere! He must resign. He would have had to in any other democratic country. Bermuda is another world, that’s for sure.

  9. The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

    He doesn’t have to apologize at all,the are freaks and they are condemned according to scripture,If you (PUBLICLY)announce that you are a man and that you have sex with a man and you are proud of it then why would you get upset when someone who doesn’t do that sees that as disgusting and freakish you say that he should apologies??? Sex as we all know and have been taught is between a man and a woman,…and even the same “gays” of rainbow alliance came to this earth by a man and a woman coming together to produce them…now for a man and a man to come together or a woman and a woman to come together that is against the nature which brought them in this world which makes their choice for sexual partner freakish!..
    Also if you put all gay men on a country with just them and gay women..how long do you think it would be before they all die off, and disregard their freakish life style and would want to mate with the opposite sex to survive,..but they are a people that are condemned… based off of their lifestyle, they are condemned to die off faster than people who practice non freakish sex with their husband or wife.

    Our birth rate is much higher and theirs is much lower, and if they wasn’t confused or mentally ill then they would stick to being a homosexual and not want to have any children, because children is the product of sperm and egg..man and woman, and if your true to your nature(homosexual)then you will not want that, but to desire to have children and practice homosexuality shows a confused, freakish, condemned mindset that is doomed. He really didn’t have to apologize but nuff respect for him to do so.

    • Sisu says:

      Don’t try to act intelligent when you clearly aren’t. Your ‘god’ made them this way so what is the big deal? Thou shall not judge I thought was something you lived by. Or are you one of those christians who pick and choose which parts of scripture to follow? Not only are you unintelligent you are also a hypocrite. Congrats, you sound wonderful. Infertile male/female couples also have no children so should we be able to discriminate against them too? How about those who wear clothes made of different material?

      • longtail says:

        Fully agree Sisu – even the Pope has said “Who am I to judge…..” Donal seems to think his opinion counts for more than that of the Pope

      • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

        @Sisu..thank you for telling me that im intelligent (obviously you are threatened by my intelligence which is why you seek to demean it)..Now if you understood scripture(which you do not) then you would understand that God gave them a free choice and sexuality is a choice believe it or not. It is a behavior that is learned, no baby is born with sexuality or sexual feelings ,if that was the case we all would be born with our private parts ready to procreate, baby boys with sperm and baby girls having their periods….

        Secondly,judging a persons actions is different from judging their heart..that’s why if you commit a murder the judge and a jury of your PEERS JUDGE YOU (still think we cant judge you?),…do they judge your heart ..no they judge your actions…but you dont understand scripture so you cant use it to make a point, that is where you fail.

        male and female couples who cant have children have the option of adoption …why ..because it is natural for heterosexual to want children because a man and a woman together produce children, and if they cannot then they will still yearn for a child because that is in their nature to do so as a heterosexual couple.

        the nature of a homosexual couple is not to produce a child at all…it is to be with the same sex and have freakish sex but produce no children, so they have chosen to live a life style to never fertilize a woman, now if your a true homosexual then you would live up to your lifestyle and not even want to adopt a child, because a child is from a man and a woman…something that homosexuals refuse to do…

        • Mike Hind says:

          This is all made up in your head. Nothing based on reality in here.

          (If sexuality is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?
          Was being gay an option for you? Did you say to yourself “I COULD be gay, but I choose not to be”?)

          • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

            yes i chose to be straight,..i have the option of being gay but i choose not to be gay,

            • Mike Hind says:

              So, you’re attracted to both men and women, but chose women?

              Cool.

              • DarkSideofTheMoon says:

                HAHA!! OWNED!!

              • Ride says:

                @Mike Hind

                He is a bisexual! Perhaps he is on the down-low and is conflicted between his religious doctrine and his unavoidable natural attraction to both genders (because that is the way he is made).

                Perhaps it is true that the most vocal opponents are the most likely practitioners.

                Ride

                • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

                  i never said attracted i said choice,…just like i can go into market place and i have never eaten zucchini,or corn beef,..i have no desire to eat it, my taste buds is not attracted to it but i can choose to eat it if i wish..
                  the same way i have no desire to be with the same sex however i can choose to do that, and if i make that choice then that would show that my mind is not only conflicted with confusion as to my sexuality but it shows i am disturbed in my thinking. I will no longer be a heterosexual,..
                  and as to @DarkSideofTheMoon and @Ride
                  1) there is no ….owned…. and with screen names like you guys you are sure you have a footing to stand on when making homosexual joking references?

                  • Girl on Fire says:

                    This is going to be a painful exercise, but I will try.

                    First, because you seem to care about these things, I am a woman. I’m also straight (but somehow lesbians are excluded from all this homophobia, interesting that).

                    The term ‘choice’ has several meanings. It could be as you say, simply an ability to pick from one of several alternatives. But to be a ‘meaningful choice’, it must include feasible alternatives that would be acceptable to the person making the choice. So, you don’t like zucchini, but you could pick broccoli, and both are acceptable food options. You just have a preference for broccoli. But if you were starving, and had no choice, you would eat the zucchini. You wouldn’t like it, but you would willingly do it.

                    But, if a criminal had a gun to my kid’s head and said “give my your purse”, you could say I have the choice not to do so. But is that a real choice – it’s not of my own free will, and one outcome (loss of things) vs another (loss of child) isn’t even remotely on the same scale. I don’t think anyone would disagree.

                    Where you argument fails is that for you, your sexuality is not a real choice. You cannot conceive of a scenario where you would willingly (and this is key – a choice must include free will) have sex with a male. It’s a theoretical option (like keeping my purse in the example above), but has no place in reality – by this I mean, you would never willingly do so, even if all women disappeared off the face of this earth, you would never ever have sex with a man. (Note you didn’t say this, but this is my sense from reading all your posts). Just as there is no scenario where I would ever keep my purse and risk my child’s life. That’s just plain silly.

                    However, by logical extension, you are arguing that is must be different for gay people – that their choice is actually between two options and they are just confused about which is the right one. How can it be a ‘meaningful choice for them’ and not for you? If you can’t fathom a scenario where you would willingly have sex with the same gender as you, then how can you expect others to make a different choice than their own preference – which you yourself could never make? To a gay man, he cannot fathom a scenario where he would willingly have sex with a woman – but you’re asking people to do something you never could. There’s a word for people like you: hypocrite.

                    To use your (limited) analogy, let’s say you could only buy zucchini and broccoli. You happen to only like broccoli, believe it’s the superior choice, nature’s will and all that, so therefore now EVERYONE has to eat broccoli and can never eat zucchini, just because of all the broccoli lovers. Even if they love zucchini, and it does not harm you in any way if they eat it, but just because YOU think that’s right. Unless of course you’re a woman, because then it’s only natural to love zucchini, and then they must never ever eat broccoli because that would be wrong. Honestly, do you hear how foolish that sounds?

                    You don’t get to say who I love. You don’t get to say whether I reproduce or not. And you don’t get to treat me differently with respect to housing, employment, and provision of services just because you don’t like my choices.

                    Oh, and yeah, I’m Bermudian. So I don’t know who this mysterious majority is that agrees with Donal, but it’s no one I know.

                    PS Mike Hind, you rock.

                  • Ride says:

                    @The Ombudsman makes a statement and

                    Egad! How could you draw such lewd implications from my and DarkSideofTheMoon’s screen names. How perverse! Perhaps a little less time on these blogs and a little more religious fellowship will purge your mind of such wild associations to the Flesh.

                    Ride

              • Logic76 says:

                HAHAHAHA! OWNED!

          • We the people!! says:

            I don’t believe that homosexuals are “born” that way. The scientific evidence is inconclusive to make a truth statement that being born gay is the scientific correct.

            Since the early 1990s, numerous scientific studies attempting to establish a scientific and genetic cause for homosexuality have not proven to be valid or repeatable. Valid and repeatable two important requirements for study results to become accepted as FACT in the scientific community.

            Some of the very people that conducted these homosexuality gene studies themselves have said and I quote “At best, the evidence for a genetic and/or biological basis to homosexual orientation is inconclusive.”

            Here are a few of these studies and what the scientist said about their own studies.

            1991 Hypothalamus (Brain) Study, Simon LeVay, who self-identifies as gay, said: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

            1991 Twins Study, Richard Pillard – also a gay man – admits: “Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins.

            1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer – also a gay man – said: “…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”

            And from the 2005 Fruit Fly Study, Barry Dickson, the lead researcher, admitted that the understanding of how innate behaviours are genetically determined is “rudimentary at best.” He also admitted that the male-male courtship behaviours they observed probably involved “environmental and social stimuli” and that the female-female courtship behaviour was abnormal – missing some key steps.

            The 2005 male and 2006 female pheromone studies from Sweden that gay activists claimed were more evidence of a biological basis to homosexuality? (Pheromones are chemicals that can be smelled and are known to influence animal behaviour. However, their role in humans is unknown.) Here, it is significant that Ivanka Savic, the lead researcher, said that the 2005 study had nothing to do with proving homosexuality to be biological. And regarding the 2006 study, she said “it is very important to make clear that the study has no implications for possible dynamics in sexual orientation.”

            More recently, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, summed up the research on homosexuality saying that “sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations”

            So clearly, using these very studies the case for a “gay gene” has not been made. Still at this very moment, the scientific evidence of being “born gay,” is in FACT (truth) inconclusive. Therefore, until this so called scientific evidence of a “gay gene” becomes 100% true then homosexuality, at its core,is matter of how one decides to act sexually – not a matter of biology or genes.

            If this is not the case please provide valid or repeatable evidence that homosexuals are “born that way.”

            • Mike Hind says:

              The point is moot. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a choice or genetic.

              Religion is a choice and it’s protected.

              • We the people!! says:

                The point is not moot. If people are claiming that homosexuals are “born that way” as a reason to accept it then their claim is baseless. It is simply not true.

                When trying to win a very public battle for homosexual rights, which a lot of people are against, EVERY point made, every truth claim, every piece of scientific evidence, every for and against, is relevant.

                Just like how people chop down every religious argument made I basically provided scientific studies that dismiss the claim that people are “born that way.”

                So stop using false claims and provide more factual information.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  People are claiming that they were born that way in response to the claim that it’s unnatural.

                  The topic wouldn’t be brought up without that initial claim.

                  That initial claim is moot, as it’s irrelevant whether it is natural and genetic or a choice, when it comes to acceptance, because, as I mentioned, religion is a choice and it is accepted and protected. ALL religion, by law, is accepted and protected. And ALL religion is a choice.

                  The claims are originating on your side as an excuse to discriminate.

                  • We the people!! says:

                    No excuses needed.

                    I am simply counter arguing some of the points made for the case of homosexuality.

                    If I am discriminating because of that then whatever.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Did you not read the post?
                      The points are made in RESPONSE to points made by those looking to discriminate.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      I just realized something…

                      I said “The claims are originating on your side as an excuse to discriminate.”

                      You said “No excuses needed.”

                      For what?

                      Are you actually saying “No excuses needed to discriminate”?

                      I’m asking ‘cuz that’s what it seems like you’re saying.

                      If you’re not, then “No excuses needed” for what?

                  • We the people!! says:

                    Also, you said “People are claiming that they were born that way in response to the claim it’s unnatural.”

                    Exactly!! My point is that their response claiming that they were “born that way” is false.

                    Then we get stupid
                    remarks back like ‘when did you decide to be straight.’ Really that is not a counter argument. It’s like asking when did you decide to be male or female.

                    • Girl on Fire says:

                      Actually, since you like science so much, you need to do some more research. Gender is not binary, more of a continuum on which there is a variety of gender expressions. It may not be mainstream, but there are people who are born with both sexes, and those whose gender identity does not match their physical body.

                      So yeah, that’s actually a relevant question. But it doesn’t really matter to me if it’s a choice or not. I don’t need scientific proof to teach me how to treat people equally.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Stupid remarks?

                      I want to get this straight. YOUR side says “It’s unnatural and it’s a choice”, based on… well, nothing, to back up their desire to discriminate.

                      When it’s countered with “I was born this way” and “I never made a choice”, you’re coming back with “You’re making claims to “make the case for homosexuality”, when they aren’t actually making claims, they’re responding to the initial false and irrelevant accusation…

                      Now you’re saying that asking people who are positing that sexuality is a choice “When did you choose yours?” is a “stupid remark”?

                      Seriously? This makes sense to you?

                      One thing you’re right on… it IS just like “When did you decide to be male or female?”
                      Asking “When did you decide to be gay?” that is.

              • We the people!! says:

                Religion and one’s sexuality cannot be compared.

                Religion is sacred, who one decides to be sexually attracted is not.

                A person’s God is bigger than another person’s sexuality. Whether you believe in a God or not you can’t deny religious rights based on its sacredness.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Religion is sacred to you. YOUR religion is sacred to you.

                  “A person’s God is bigger than another person’s sexuality.”
                  While this may or may not be true, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason that the person’s God should trump the other person’s ANYTHING, to the other person.

                  Your God is just that. YOURS.
                  Someone’s sexuality is theirs and is none of your business.

                  (Oh, and no one is denying religious rights. They’re simply asking for the exact same rights everyone else has.)

                  • We the people!! says:

                    Yes, even though religion is an individual choice it cannot be violated whatsoever because it is sacred.

                    Someone’s sexual preference is not sacred. Therefore you cannot compare, apply, or ask for the same protection rights with equality.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Maybe I’m missing something. What do you mean by “Sacred”?

                      Someone’s religion cannot be violated because the law says it can’t, so I’m wondering what you mean by “sacred”.

                      Because there are also things that are given the same protection rights as religion that aren’t “Sacred”.

                      Oh, and, in case you missed it, “Sexual orientation,” IS now given the same protection rights, so I seriously have no idea what you’re saying here.

                    • Zombie Apocalypse says:

                      It isn’t “sacred” to me. Whatever ‘sacred’ is supposed to mean.
                      You choose to be religious. It’s not ‘natural’. It’s not ‘how you’re born.’ It’s your choice.

            • Girl on Fire says:

              Huh, so you weren’t born straight then? That’s interesting. And if I understand all these studies, the only reason you are straight is personal preference made as a result of the environment you were raised in, and not representative of biological expression of any kind? And therefore in another set of circumstances (i.e. raised in a culture which allowed for sexual preference for either gender) you could actually choose to be attracted to the same sex? Fascinating.

              For me, I’ve always had a thing for boys, but good to know that was simply a personal choice. Maybe if I watch enough lesbian porn I could be persuaded. You’ve just doubled my potential partners – awesome!

              …and yes, that was sarcasm. Also I’m married. But still, good to know from your scientific research that I have options!

              Also, who cares if it’s a choice? Doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate just because you don’t agree.

              • We the people!! says:

                Huh? Wow, I think you need to read over the studies again because you comment is way out there if you are responding to the studies.

                The studies were an attempt to find or prove that homosexuals are ‘born that way.’ However they could not find biological or genentic evidence that homosexuals are born that way.

                There will NEVER be a study to prove people are born straight. Haha!! Sorry but your comment went off the deep end!!

                • Girl on Fire says:

                  Come again? You just said sexuality was a matter of choice. And you said that sexuality is not genetic. Therefore, YOUR sexuality must also be a choice, and not genetic. They didn’t find any evidence of a ‘straight’ gene either.

                  It’s called logic. Try and keep up.

                • Girl on Fire says:

                  I also think you are confusing sexuality with biological reproduction. If the goal was to reproduce, then yes, you need a man and a woman. However, humans don’t have sex simply to reproduce. Sexuality is used to describe a variety of human expressions and the way in which we relate to each other. One is not a synonym of the other.

                  Just because you need the opposite sex to reproduce, doesn’t mean you’re sexually attracted to them.

            • Toodle-oo says:

              It might not have anything to do with ‘genes’ at all. Although one day it may be proven so . Modern science is continually evolving .
              What if it has to do with reincarnation ? You know there’s a lot of people out there who believe in that stuff ,and it’s not really that much harder to swallow than the belief of some magician in the sky who no-one’s ever seen who supposedly waved his arms and created everything out of nothing.

            • Leaper says:

              So what if the ’cause’ may have an environmental and/or social element to it? So what if it isn’t solely or partly or at all genetic? How does that make it a choice? It’s still NOT a choice.

              NATURE all around us is shaped by environmental and social stimuli. Why would humans be any different? Whether there are environmental stimuli, social stimuli, heredity, or wahtever other factors at play doesn’t mean that sexuality is a choice. It doesn’t mean that it is a characteristic that is subject to change. All that you summed above is the MASSIVE complexity around human sexuality. Being ‘born that way’ is NOT the issue.

        • Commenter says:

          Parenthood, or wanting to be a parent, is totally separate from one’s sexual orientation. Your correlation of the two is baseless. “True homosexuals should live up to their lifestyle and not want to adopt children”?? WHAT?! The statement is just ridiculous. Also, you seem to forget that homosexuals have other options than adoption: e.g. Surrogacy, In Vitro, and Artificial Insemination.
          I’d encourage you to watch The Real L Word (especially Cori & Kacy’s story – http://www.autostraddle.com/real-l-words-cori-kacy-are-pregnant-5-months-away-from-adorable-baby-photos-153774/) to see that it’s simply natural for women to want to be mothers. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation!

          Some societies allow single parents to adopt. Some progressive societies allow gay couples to adopt (and rightly so). What does their sexual orientation have to do with their ability to raise a child? NOTHING.

          I would rather see an orphaned or unwanted child adopted by ANY parents (as long as they prove that they can care for the child and that they have the child’s best interests in mind) rather than adopted by NO parents and live out their childhood in the “system”.

          Side notes: It isn’t a choice to “live a lifestyle”. When you know, you know. The only real choice is A) Live an authentic life and be true to yourself. or B) Live a lie and stay in the closet.

          • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

            Being a parent of a child is first fulfilling the natural role to produce a child which is between an man and a woman..sperm and egg..If you are a true homosexual you want NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX..i encourage you to look up the definition of homosexual….
            With that being if a homosexual female couple gets pregnant by artificial insemination then she is not true to being a homosexual and shows that it is most definitively a choice to live that lifestyle, and she is choosing to step into the life of a heterosexual woman to have a child…
            If a homosexual male couple or female couple want to adopt then they are stepping out of their homosexual lifestyle and into a nature of a heterosexual, because a child is a product of a man and a woman coming together to produce a child, that is the nature of a heterosexual couple to produce children.
            If you are true to being a homosexual then you would know that your choice of a lifestyle only includes freakish sex and no children being produced…..but you then choose to act like a heterosexual and want a child , something that is produced that goes against the lifestyle your living…
            That’s just as crazy as a self proclaimed STRAIGHT male buying male prostitutes but telling everybody that he is not gay that he is straight.

            • Commenter says:

              “If you are a true homosexual you want NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX” … That’s ridiculous. Do you know how many gay men have female best friends?

              Homosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
              Hmm, just as I suspected, nothing about parenthood in that definition!!!

              I’m bisexual. So, should I want to have children or not? Should I be allowed to adopt, if for any reason I can’t have children of my own?

              Wait, WHY AM I ASKING YOU?! LOL. As if YOU can dictate what other people can or should do with their lives. Get outta here! Your entire post is pure nonsense.

        • Sisu says:

          So because sexuality is a choice we should be allowed to discriminate against them? Is that what you are arguing??

          • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

            Because sexuality is a choice it is just that, a choice, however you cannot step out into the world and announce your freakish lifestyle and expect laws to change just for you. You speak about discrimination but the rainbow alliance is Lesbians,Gays,Bisexuals,and Transgenders..all of which is homosexual…how is it that this group who is calling for fairness based off of sexuality… FAIL and DISCRIMINATE against the heterosexual so much so that they do not even include, in their group the heterosexual.
            Human rights is for all humans …rainbow alliance is only for a selected sexuality, but they discriminate and leave out heterosexuality and want homosexuality rights??
            Show me a law where the heterosexual has rights exclusively because of their sexuality… but im supposed to be ok with being forced to accept a law for the homosexual…thats a gay dictatorship…like a bunch gay Hitlers

            • Commenter says:

              This takes the cake for dopey comments. The human rights act amendment protects everyone who has a sexual orientation and that includes heterosexuals.

              Also your argument is somewhat like, “Why don’t we have white history month?”

              Get a clue.

            • Commenter says:

              Also…
              “Show me a law where the heterosexual has rights exclusively because of their sexuality”

              The Marriage Act springs to mind.

              • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

                Marriage Act is and was an act between a man and a woman, and if homosexuals disregard religion and Gods Laws why would you want to participate in a ritual that is developed for heterosexuals and for the development of community by producing children??

                • Commenter says:

                  Because of love!

                  And for the same reasons that heterosexual couples want to get married.

                  e.g.
                  http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Why does anyone else have to follow the laws of your religion or God?

                  And, as mentioned, procreation isn’t a stipulation for marriage. No matter how many times you ignore people pointing this out and just repeating the line (and lie), it’s not going to make it true.

            • Sisu says:

              Because religion is a choice it is just that, a choice, however you cannot step out into the world and announce your beliefs and expect laws to change just for you.

              • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

                wrong the world has always had people who believe in God fighting against those who are rebellious transgressors and proud of it. The Laws have been established by those who believe in God, and our system of law derives its self from that I can and will announce my religious beliefs but the difference is I wont try to force my way of life on people ..and the homosexual community forces their way of life on people and want laws for themselves exclusively

                • Mike Hind says:

                  “I won’t try to force my way of life on people…”

                  So you agree that there SHOULD be marriage equality? Homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as hetero couples?

                  Awesome!

                  (If not? That’s you forcing your way of life onto people…)

                  They’re not looking for laws for themselves exclusively. They’re just looking for the same rights everyone else has.
                  The laws themselves, as they stand now, are exclusive. Folks are looking for LESS exclusiveness.

        • longtail says:

          Ombudsman – you state that a homosexual couple’s relationship is not “natural” because they cannot produce a child at all…
          Leaving aside the point that homosexual couples are free to adopt (and DO adopt children!) and leaving aside also the huge issue of heterosexual men who have children outside of marriage and do not support their children (this seems to be OK in your book!!!) in my case my wife and I married later in life and have no hope of producing children nor is adoption a realistic option at our age. According to your comments my marriage is “unnatural” because we cannot produce a child…. Your comments are a nonsense and are frankly offensive sir.

          • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

            so u an your wife at your old age have no children whatsoever??

            • Sisu says:

              Why not answer my question above?.. Are you implying that because sexual preference is the result of one’s “free choice” we should be allowed to discriminate against them?

            • Mike Hind says:

              I don’t have children and probably won’t. Should I be denied legal rights?

            • longtail says:

              No, we do not have any children. Are you unable to read as well as being unable to understand that human relationships are not just about having children?????

      • Dear friend says:

        At least they are picking and choosing from a moral code. YOu pick and choose based upon what feels right and what white people deem correct.

        • Mike Hind says:

          You’re making things up again! Tsk tsk.

          Oh, and you’re a racist.

        • Sisu says:

          There are more black gays in Bermuda than whites. Suck on that fact ;)

    • Mike Hind says:

      Is there any reason to oppose equal rights and marriage equality that doesn’t involve people having to follow the rules of YOUR religion?

      Most of your post has been debunked and refuted with facts time and again on other threads.
      You are wrong.

    • Commenter says:

      “based off of their lifestyle, they are condemned to die off faster than people who practice non freakish sex with their husband or wife.”

      LOL.
      This statement is:
      1. Totally false.
      2. A lie.
      3. Made-up.
      4. Ridiculous.

      And FYI…… there are a LOT of married (or not) heterosexual couples who have a hell of a lot of kinky, “freakish” (or just FREAKY) sex!

      But obviously you must just be into missionary, three pump chump? LOL.

      • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

        1)put 50 fertile heterosexual couples in a secluded country with all the means to eat and survive and plant food ect ect…

        2)put 50 fertile homosexual men couples in a secluded country with all the means to eat and survive and plant food ect ect…

        3)put 50 fertile homosexual women couples in a secluded country with all the means to eat and survive and plant food ect ect…

        If my statement is false and a lie and ridiculous..tel me what group would procreate and last longer??….
        they would be doomed to die off faster….all that you would say now is jokes and ignore the facts

        • Mike Hind says:

          This is a complete logical fallacy. Procreation is NOT a stipulation for marriage, nor relationships.

          • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

            fallacy’s is of two type informal fallacy and formal please show how it is a fallacy, this is your only defense when common sense and logic prevail you want to dismiss it as a fallacy which by definition makes your response a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy, because you can’t even logically disprove what was said you just answer by saying its a fallacy,
            is your middle name Be ..Mike??

            • Mike Hind says:

              Someone’s already made the “Behind” joke.

              I hadn’t heard it before today. Well done. You guys are comedy geniuses. It’s always comedy gold to go for the simplest, most obvious joke. Nice.

              As for your response, look up what a logical fallacy is.

              Your proposal to put 150 people somewhere and see how long they take to die is an attempt to promote the idea that homosexuals are somehow inferior and, as such, should be excluded from sharing the same rights as the rest of us because the folks they’re attracted to are of the same gender and, as such, they cannot procreate together. This, of course, is not true and, as such, is a logical fallacy. It SOUNDS like it makes sense, but it’s simply gibberish.

              • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

                its not true hmmmmmm ok then please show me how a man and a man can make a baby…..sits back ..this should be interesting..
                and homosexuals share the same rights as me right now under the human rights act, when we have a heterosexual added to that act then we can look at a homosexual as well…………..
                never the less …. being that you said its not true show me how a man and a man can make a baby

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Procreation is not a stipulation, therefore your premise is a fallacy.

                  Heterosexual WAS added to the act. The wording added was “sexual orientation,”
                  Heterosexuality is an orientation. Therefore, THAT point is wrong.

                  And, again, procreation is not a stipulation.

        • Commenter says:

          That’s not a realistic scenario.

          If you put 50 heterosexual women in a secluded country alone, you’d get the exact same result as if you put 50 homosexual women on in a secluded country alone.

          Likewise, if you put 50 homosexual men in a secluded country alone, you’d get the exact same result as if you put 50 heterosexual men on in a secluded country alone.

          We all know how biology works. Sperm and egg join, this is nothing new. So clearly, isolating only one sex (regardless of their sexual orientation) will not result in any new life. This is true of both homosexuals and heterosexuals. SO? This IS a ridiculous scenario that will never happen.

          Also, please note, it takes a man and woman to create a gay person.

          • Mike Hind says:

            This!

          • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

            it takes a man and a woman to create a child it takes an adult to create himself as gay….

            I am for ALL gay men to be placed in a country to have their own laws and im for all gay women to be placed in a country with their own laws let them have their utopia …but as soon as they start dying off the will result back to their original human nature and want to mate

            • Mike Hind says:

              Wow. A call for segregation. Amazing.

            • Commenter says:

              False. I know many gay people who knew they were gay since childhood.

              You sound like an ignorant fool. Replace “gay men” in your sentence with “black men” or “Christian women” or any other human group, and see what an idiot (not to mention bigot) you sound like.

              Gay couples CAN and DO have children. Sometimes, they just have to get a little more creative. Much like infertile straight couples!

              Can you give any good reason why gay people should be segregated from everyone else? Any good, logical reason? If not, how can you say you support something like that? I just wonder how many of your own family members or friends are gay, and if you’d want to send them away to live in isolation too? Jeez, and you were the one who mentioned Hitler. Meanwhile, YOU are supporting Nazi-like tactics… Nazis put in place laws to exclude the Jews from civil society … replace Jews with Gays, and there we have your agenda! WOW.

        • Commenter says:

          So… here’s what you’re basically saying:

          “If everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would die out.”

          But what you really mean is:
          “If everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would die out, therefore homosexuality is bad.”

          However, this is really bad logic.

          Think of this…

          If everyone in the world skipped having kids, and devoted their lives to the poor like Mother Theresa, the human race would die out. Does that make Mother Theresa bad?

          If everyone in the world spent their days trying to cure cancer, no one would be growing food and the human race would die out. Does that mean trying to cure cancer is bad?

          P.S. Earth is already overpopulated.

  10. street wise says:

    It is very interesting to note that Jesus Christ had NOTHING to say regarding homosexuality anywhere in the New Testament. Yet these so-called Christians, who purport to follow Jesus, dig out antiquated verses from the Old Testament to rationalize their anti-gay agenda. By what right do you have to JUDGE other groups of people who harm no one…?? IMO, these people are not true Christians, they are self-rightious hypocrites.

    Donal is actually quite transparent… you can see right through him.

    • Ughh says:

      Matt 19:4

      4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

      This clearly shows Jesus’ position as regards to morality. According to the bible, the only sex that is acceptable is sex between a husband and wife.

      It amazes me that these religious hypocrites are quick to denounce homosexuality, but not once have they condemned sex before marriage… I wonder why.

      • Will says:

        the bible is fictitious, when will you peoples realise this. Living your life by what the bible says is not a proper way to do so in the 21st century. That book only preaches a reversal of civilization and civility and has no use in dealing with modern matters…now grow up and think for yourself.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Irrelevant. People can believe what they want to believe.

          They just shouldn’t be allowed to expect or demand that anyone else should have to follow the rules of that belief.

          • Dear friend says:

            Neither should you expect Donal to beleive what you beleive and he can say what he wants to say without all of this rancor. If you want to have sex with a man which is offensive to our community he should be able to share his views and you not take offense.

            • Mike Hind says:

              We’ve been over this, repeatedly. Why do you keep ignoring the response?

            • Will says:

              its not offensive in any way to the community..just you and a handfull of people who want nothing better to do then hate others.

              And why is it this whole argument about homosexuality directed at gay men…do we not know that lesbians exist..or does that not bother you because secretly you love watching lesbian porn?

              • Dear friend says:

                Lol…Hahhahahaaaaaa,
                YOu better stop telling on yourself WILL.

          • ughh says:

            I agrre 100%. People have the right to live the life they choose and no one should force theor beliefs on others.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Well, SOME people have that right.

              This is the whole point. Not everyone does.

              They should

  11. Speak in fine print, but hear me in bold says:

    He made his thoughts/opinions known publicly. Why is he not standing by his words and convictions? His apology is void. No one remembers apologies. Mean what you say, say what you mean.

    • Dear friend says:

      OH no because you are bitter. Thats why you dont remember apologies. YOu who want justice and fair treatment now cannot accept his apology. But if his name was PEttingil you would expect the church to accept HIS apology. You are self absorbed morally depraved people.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And you are a disgusting racist.

        • Dear friend says:

          YOU dont have a clue of what you are saying. You are the racist.

          • DarkSideofTheMoon says:

            No Dear friend you are a racist…and I am black calling you a racist against white people. You are a disgusting person.

            • Dear friend says:

              your a confused black person if you are supporting males having sex with males and deny the impact of racism on our community.

          • Mike Hind says:

            I’m not the one judging people as inferior based on their skin colour. You are. Guess what that makes you? Besides insane.

  12. I totally agree with ” not enough”. he should resign!!!! What is he doing in Columbia???? Please let’s not let that go under the carpet as we did with every PLP venture for pleasure. The Corpooration has no money ! I just don’t get it when I don’t have travel funds I can’t travel, where is the money coming from, and why are we sending him? This is to much for my head.

  13. Banana Leaf says:

    Apology? Seems is apologizing to family and friends and still doesn’t comprehend that his intolerant views hurt the Corp of Hamilton & Bermuda’s reputation overseas and all Bermudians. There is no way that members of the delegation haven’t been following Bernews and other online comments. He could have issued an apology days ago.

    If I were a constituent, I’d ask… was this jaunt necessary? Why so many people were on this jaunt? Seems one representative and a translator could have sufficed. The $$$ spent could have been used locally. Who’s paying for the excess phone and internet charges due to the fallout from the Deputy’s comments? What will be the immediate reward to Hamilton residents for anyone from C of H attending the conference?

  14. Whistling Frog says:

    I’d prefer a man to speak his mind then to stand in silence and stab me in the back…

    • Bozey says:

      Ok…I have had enough of this craziness!! The bottom line Mr Smith stated how he feels…how he said it was wrong, but what he said has been said by pastors, gov. officials, etc.!! Just in different words…get over it!

  15. Truth is killin' me... says:

    That’s ok…let ‘em all spend, spend, spend at the Corporation. They’ll just get Ed Benevides and company to clamp all you gays and straights vehicles for more trips to Colombia!!! $100 a car can buy a few airline tickets I imagine!!!!!

  16. kieth,n says:

    its a european sickness and was considered a mental sickness up untill 1973,,,,but i can guarantee you that there is an agenda behind it,,,, nothing to do with god,,,we are in serious trouble,, wait and see,

    i dont care about them,, but when will my brothers wake up??
    homosexuality has been put in place for a reason,some sort of cleansing?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Not only wrong, but racist. Well done.

      Is there a reason to oppose equal rights and marriage equality that doesn’t involve other people having to follow the rules of your religion?

      • Dear friend says:

        Why are you calling it racist. YOu should spend time calling your fellow bloggers who support white supremacy and decry and legitimate effort of black people for self-determination racist. YOu want it your way.

      • kieth,n says:

        any organised religion is to control a people,,,we can talk about this without raising tentions,

        • kieth,n says:

          and im not a racist, im racial ,,i love my race

        • Mike Hind says:

          Is there a reason to oppose equal rights and marriage equality that doesn’t involve other people having to follow the rules of your religion?

    • Dear friend says:

      here here!

  17. Bermewjan says:

    Resign now!

  18. Portia says:

    As I recall, Fahy and Branco got themselves in hot water earlier this year for calling Bermudians “xenophobic” who disagreed with the OBA’s policies. Many people demanded their resignation. Cannonier then offered an apology on their behalf – neither of the men apologized themselves, that I am aware of.

    Then Pettingill, in the House of Assembly, called people of religious affiliations kool-aid drinkers and ignorant, and told them that they should leave the Island if they don’t agree with the OBA’s policies. Again, people called for him to resign. The Premier stood by Pettingill and backed him up. After much public outcry, Pettingill offered a half-hearted apology, not apologizing or taking back what he said, but for the fact that people were offended by his words.

    If, as the Rainbow Alliance has pointed out, Smith’s words were an “inappropriate way for an elected official to speak about anyone,” than I would imagine that would equally apply to the words said by an MP, Attorney General or Chairman of the ruling party – who not only out-rank the Deputy Mayor of Hamilton, but also uttered their statements to the press, and in the House of Assembly while debating legislation, and not in a religious talk show!

    Now, either there is a great disparity in Bermuda, or people have short memories. Or maybe it’s just agendas being pushed. If it was acceptable for Pettingil, Fahy and Branco to say WHAT THEY SAID, and still retain their jobs, then there can be no cause to further insist on this man’s resignation. People need to move on, and stop with this double standard, because it’s getting really old here.

    • Mike Hind says:

      When did Messrs. Fahy, Branco and Pettingil say that the people they offended were no better than people who have sex with animals and when did they support the continuation of the denial of rights against that group?

      • Dear friend says:

        Does that matter?
        They were offensive.
        Moreover why are you defending them? That is not your role. Nobody accused you of anything. That is called white solidarity. You cant help yourself. You are rising to defend them because you are naturally in their corner. YOu have no credibility.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Not defending them. Asking a question. But you keep trying to denounce based on skin colour. It really lets us know where you’re coming from.

          The situations do NOT compare.

          Racists like you are the ones with no credibility, nor should they.

          You are disgusting.

          • Question says:

            I disagree with you on one point – -

            The situations do compare. You have elected officials speaking their minds and opinions on topics of the day and all said something that was offensive to a group of people in our community – - so how is not that similiar?

            And that’s the point – - as I felt with the AG and Minister Fahy’s “apologies” – they were not real and a total fraud – - Mr. Smith’s is in the same category – not real at all.

            My post has nothing to do with race or colour – - but with the concept of (your favourite word again) “EQUALITY” – - our outcry should be equally as silent or as loud for all who do the same things – - -but one question remains,

            “Why does that not happen?”

            (I know the answer to this one, BTW – - so do you, if you are really honest about this country)

            Q

            • Mike Hind says:

              I speak for myself and myself alone.

              The reason there ISN’T equal outcry on both sides is because of politics and differences and culture and priorities.

              Sometimes it’s about making political points. Sometimes is because some issues are less important to the person than others.

              Sometimes, as in this case, folks don’t think, for example, that calling a group of people who have a history of speaking out against foreigners “xenophobic” is as out of line as supporting the concept that a group of people shouldn’t have the same rights as the rest of us and then falsely likening them to people who have sex with animals. Some of us don’t think the two compare.

          • Dear friend says:

            You are desperate!

      • Portia says:

        So because Fahy, Branco and Pettingill insulted people in a “nicer” way, you assume that makes it acceptable? Well, perhaps Smith should have taken a page from their book of “insults I will use against you in my intellectually superior way.”

        What one person says is often intrepreted in a more severe light than another person. YOU judge Smith’s words as more offensive than 1) telling people who are concerned about jobs, their livelihood and their right to work that they just hate foreigners and 2) telling anyone who follows a religious belief and disagrees with you that they should leave their HOME.

        Nothing uttered by those three men was any less hurtful and offensive than Smith’s remarks, yet you give them a pass simply because it is not offensive to YOU. But the truth is, we are all not YOU, and you really lose a lot of creditability when you and other OBA supporters defend the indefensible and refuse to hold the OBA to account for anything that is said or done.

        • Mike Hind says:

          You lost it when you called me an OBA supporter. Showed your true colours there.

          You’re just digging for a reason to denounce the OBA because your party lost the election.

          I’ve explained my position to you. I find it amazing that you think there’s a comparison (and think that, if you weren’t trying to score political points, you wouldn’t be making the comparison).

          Ah, well. I thought you were going to have a discussion, but if this is just going to be more anti-Government propaganda filled with ad hominems and misinformation, there’s no discussing.

        • Commenter says:

          I think you mean credibility (not creditability).

    • Dear friend says:

      excellent post! Clear, logical and factual.

  19. Will says:

    clearly its not a sincere apology. No one in the history of mankind makes such remarks and then all of a sudden apologises.

    • Dear friend says:

      OK so you discount the apologies of Branco and Pettingil too right?
      do you know about the history of mankind too? geeessh this gets sickening by the moment.

  20. Sisu says:

    On Day 4 god created the sun.
    Yet somehow on Day 1 he created light.

    Proof d bible is wrong? Or can we just look past this factual error too?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Reacting to disrespect with disrespect does no one any good.

      • Dear friend says:

        read your rants. YOu do it all of the time Mike.

        • Mike Hind says:

          No, I do not. That is another lie from you.

          • Dear friend says:

            just read the rubbish that you post. You twist things and then want to appear to be calm and logical. Answer the question why are Europeans largely the ones pushing this. they are incidentlally the most powerful forces against spiritual values and undermine ethics that come from traditions and scripture. WHy. Are they more enlightened.

            • Come Correct says:

              Are you a Christian?

              • Dear friend says:

                NOT AT ALL!
                That is the convention of the Europeans who combine the biblical teachings with Greek and Roman Philosophy. The Great Inquisistion, Slavery, Popery etc. These are all from the Historical Christian Movement however, Biblical teachings are different.

            • JD says:

              95 member states have signed an LGBT rights Declaration in the UN General Assembly, or sponsored the 2011 LGBT rights resolution in the UNHRC, including all of Central and North America, pretty much all of South America, Australia, New Zealand Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Gabon, Thailand and Nepal.

              So its not really even “largely” Europeans pushing this now is it.

              Just in case you were wondering, when you start talking about powerful European forces undermining scripture, and people look at their watch and say they forgot that they have somewhere to be…they don’t really have somewhere to be.

              • Dear friend says:

                Do you know that those countries had to sign on to this resolution for fear of economic reprisals. African countries that do not recognize homosexuality as an acceptable practice are sanctioned? It is Europes view that we must accept their worldview if not we will starve.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  So, more racist lies it is, then. Got it.

                • JD says:

                  So what you are saying is that Brazil and Japan had to sign up to these UN resolutions out of fear of economic reprisals from Europe.

                  Interesting.

                  I’d love to talk about this more but whoaa look at the time, sorry I’ve got that thing at the place with the people.

            • Mike Hind says:

              You got an answer to your question. Anything to say about that?

              Or are you just going to ignore this stuff and spout more racist lies?

            • glue says:

              he is calm and logical.

      • kieth,n says:

        its just that the truth hurts,
        but it will also set you free

      • Fed up says:

        Mike you are an idiot!

    • Dear friend says:

      Do you have any clue about what you are reading?

      • Fed up says:

        My point exactly, Mike doesn’t have a clue, but he needs to get one quick! SMH @ Mike (gets left be)Hind

        • Mike Hind says:

          Ha. Ha. Ha.

          The “beHind” joke about my last name. It gets funnier and funnier.

          Will you be joining the conversation, or just throwing around insults?
          If not? Why so scared to engage?

          • Fed up says:

            Maybe because I check this site mornings to review the news and that’s it! I don’t spend my every waking minute arguing with everyone about every damn thing! Get a life mike and get a damn hobby!

            • Mike Hind says:

              So… no, then? Just keeping up with the insults?

              Got it.

              Well done. Thanks for your input. It added… well… nothing.

        • Mike Hind says:

          So, this was a drive-by trolling. Nice.

      • Sisu says:

        No, it doesn’t make logical sense.

    • kieth,n says:

      the bible is part myth, part folk lore, and part truth,,
      the fairy tail parts are just storys with morals to them that were stolen from egyptian text and hieroglyphs,,if a story is told to instill faith and truth , then the illustration used need not be true ,the bible now is a twisted lie by euorpians then they regurgitated it, then sold it back,,

      i know the truth hurts,

  21. yes says:

    Get with the times buddy. I’m sure you should not be talking, come out of the closet rainbow man, it’s ok, there is no hell, except in your mind.

  22. Liars/Truth says:

    The story goes in another direction-as people all have there own opinions- not two alike here.

    We are all in this world together-that means you and l alike. We have to look at the larger picture here, which is, in the end we all go through the same vicissitudes and writhe during our lives. We all need help from time to time to see the larger pictures.

    In this case, things were said from a man that probably will regret what he said. At the same time, he really believes what he said to be honorable and god fearing. Although that does not make it alright, it has added to the discussion which inevitably we all must have a part of.

    People that tend to go in other directions are just mischievously looking for answers Mike and you should not get to offended by the perceived racially motivated tone, as it is answers they are looking for….

    Finally, people need to stop and listen a bit more and learn by observations rather than opinions. This would inevitably help our society to move forward together and reach the goals we believe are achievable.

    We all have to be realistic. Have realistic goals and aspirations that are achievable without hurting your neighbor or your competition.

    Jesus- and l am not a big follower- was a man on earth that 3+ Billion people look up to for answers. He was a kind soul that was eons ahead of his time and l respect that. But he has nothing to do with today as we are in a fast moving world with borders changing yearly, with Nuclear Bombs and chemical Weapons. We have Internet and we have light.

    God said “Let there Be Light”. I don’t believe he said throw the 7 Million Jews in the gas chambers. I do not believe that he said cut someones hand off because they had a sickness. I don’t want to believe that he said take out ones eye if it offends you. I will not believe that he said throw acid at little girls that would like to be educated.

    Nor should anyone judge somebody else for what they believe to be the truth as eventually they will see it the way it has to be seen in due course.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Oh, it’s not a perceived racially motivated tone…

      Dear friend actually called for people to rise up against white people yesterday and claimed that white folks do not have a moral compass.

      There’s no “perceived” about it.

      It’s offensive, racist drivel with no place in our society.

      • Liars/Truth says:

        He is in a discussion and he is pulling out the “drivel” from you also.

        My opinion- engage with this young man- however be careful to not instill more “contempt” from him as he is not clear on the direction we are moving due to his comments you have previously shown.

        He is not a racist-there are few left in this world. People are just scared of facing life by the horns of a bull.

        • Mike Hind says:

          I’ve tried engaging, to no avail.
          I WOULD be interested in seeing what “drivel” he’s “pulled out of me”, in your opinion, though…

          And, yeah. He IS a racist.

          • Dear friend says:

            Mike.
            I am not a racist. I am a part of this community and have a right to express myself. I dont think you accept that racism is real. I dont think you recognize its legacy and its presence. You are trying to censor me and that is the arrogance of your false humility. I am a Bermudian and have had experienced the legacy of racism and i am astute enough to make distinctions between my culture and yours. I have read a bit of European history and have traced this homosexual behaviour throughout European history. Yet it did not start there it is an old behaviour found in other cultures too. In my opinion it leads to no social good. . I do beleive that Homosexuals are born that way and others have been raped molested and or confused while others are experirementing with violating natural or moral laws. Yet all of these should be respected and protected. I just dont think that thier behavour should be accepted. That is my opinion and dont reduce me to being ignorant irrelavant or not a legitimate part of the community. ITs not all about you Mike!

            • Mike Hind says:

              You keep saying this… that I don’t think racism is real and that I keep denying it.
              When, in reality, I’m the one pointing out that, not only is it real, it’s being practiced today… by you.

              You “make distinctions between my culture and yours” to paint mine as inferior to yours, based on race. That is the very definition of racism.

              I am NOT trying to censor you. I have not attempted to silence you in any way, shape or form, so that is another lie.
              To say that homosexuality began in Europe or is a European construct is not only ignorant, it’s completely false and you cannot possibly have ANY evidence to back it up. You made this up.

              You are lashing out with lies and misinformation and misrepresentation because you know in your heart of hearts that your position is one of hate and discrimination and you can’t bear to let that go.

              I’ve asked repeatedly and you refuse to answer:

              Is there a reason to oppose ANY of this that doesn’t depend on ANYONE else having to follow the rules of your religion?

              ANY chance of getting an answer?

          • Dear friend says:

            Sorry Mike I am not a racist, I am a counter-racist! I will not call you a racist either but you are a suspected one.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Anyone who posts, in all caps, “WE MUST STAND UP TO WHITE PEOPLE…” and claims what people do not have a moral code because of the colour of their skin?

              That’s a racist.

              Someone who disagrees with them? Not a racist.

              In case you missed it.

      • Dear friend says:

        What are you really trying to say? You better be careful. You are the one who cant tolerate a different view. Just because someone rejects homosexual practices and racism does not make them an anarchist sir.

      • Dear friend says:

        When did i call people to rise up against white people. You are like a frightened child in a school yard. Whats wrong with you?

        • Mike Hind says:

          I’m QUOTING you!

          Dear friend says:
          September 16, 2013 at 12:02 pm
          (On the “Fahy: Comments…) page

          “TO BE RIGHTEOUS AND STAND AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE AND HOMOSEXUALS IS NOW TO BE UNPOPULAR AND PEOPLE WILL ATTACK YOUR MONEY AND REPUTATION JUST LIKE THEY DID TO BLACK PEOPLE BEFORE.”

          Or are you going to claim this isn’t a call to be righteous and to stand up against white people?

  23. Who that cap fit says:

    BIGOT!

  24. Liars/Truth says:

    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”[1]

  25. What is really going on says:

    Question is did he apolgize because he meant it or just because of the backlash?

    • Dear friend says:

      Really?
      Many asked for the apology and now you are doubting its sincerity. WHY?

  26. Richard T says:

    Donal Smith is entitled to be as hateful as he likes but should resign because of stupidity. Did he ever learn politics? A politician can’t say what they believe in public.

  27. Bdaluv says:

    He NEEDS TO RESIGN!
    Politicians must realise that the represent their people in other works HE works for US and HIS views do NOT reflect ours!!!
    Isn’t he being investigated something about money???

    • Dear friend says:

      Say that to Petingill. OH NO! you wouldn’t do that…and why not?

      • Mike Hind says:

        That has already been addressed. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean it hasn’t.

        Keep up.

        • Dear friend says:

          Smooth evasion of the truth. You support their political party and are a part of their culture and you lack passion for justice if it is not a part of your hobby horse or cause.

  28. ann says:

    We do tend to get off topic on these blogs!! I firmly feel Donal (Donald) should resign. Please OBA get the Corporation back to where it belongs in town, Where people actually pay their taxes. NO ONE has been able to explain to me yet why this man is spending money that is not his in Colombia!!!! Boy does it smell like PLP.

  29. Nok says:

    I am mad for your apology Mr. Smith PPL need to stand up with what they believe in these gay and lesbians stand up for what they believe in.js

  30. Liars/Truth says:

    Dear Friend,

    In one breath you talk in two tongues. You should not be advocating anarchy as you so clearly believe.

    If you are a reflection of what our community is, we are doomed, so l believe you are not a good upstanding member of the community but rather an anarchist.

    Watch your tongue as this is not about you either as you said to Mike.

    You are acting as if people should believe your views and quite frankly, you have not contributed anything to this conversation except for stone throwing and anarchy.

    You need to get with the program and realize that not everybody thinks about life the way you do. Some people don’t care. And others are amused at how you keep bringing race into every single subject like Betty Trump and Laverne Furbert.

    I think you are looking for answers in all the wrong ways, be careful, as people have the same feelings about different buttons you are pushing, including you.

    • Dear friend says:

      What are you really trying to say? You better be careful. You are the one who cant tolerate a different view. Just because someone rejects homosexual practices and racism does not make them an anarchist sir.

      • Dear friend says:

        2 tongues, explain!

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope, but saying that an entire race has no moral compass and is, thus, morally inferior to another?

        That’s racist.

        And you said it.

        • Dear friend says:

          I never said it is inferior. As a result of racism there is no ideal culture.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Now you’re just plain, straight up lying.
            Have an ounce of honesty.

            Any chance that you’ll explain why you think that anyone else on the planet should have to abide by the rules of your moral code?

  31. Liars/Truth says:

    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”[1]

    reply

  32. Ya got me Rollin says:

    You know well and good that any apology from Mr. Smith would be rejected. It was pointless for him to apologies just look at all this. If he resigned, it still wouldn’t be enough.

    It’s bizarre that some of these bloggers are appalled that the church accepts, paedophiles, adulterers, and people who have committed other form of sin. Guess what the church also accepts homosexuals , thieves, murderers and liars. I think that just about covers ALL of us.

  33. jt says:

    Mike Hind wins until someone arguing with him can answer his repeated and clear question:

    “Is there any reason to oppose equal rights, marriage equality or even homosexuality in general that doesn’t involve other people following the rules of your religion?”

    • Mike Hind says:

      Not really a contest, with winners, but…

      Yeah. I’d like an answer to that one…

      • jt says:

        Agreed. Not sure all debaters see it that way though, thus the choice.

        • jt says:

          ….and we all know why you are not getting an answer – even those your debating know.

    • Question says:

      Here’s an answer on the question:

      Yes – the law has not changed to allow same sex marriage within the isles of Bemuda, thus the rules of one’s religion is a mute point. Marriage between persons of the same sex is not legally recognized in Bermuda (regardless of the reasons why) – so unless the gay community believes in lawlessness and anarchy, the religious sect of the community is not the target.

      Question – Will you go after those who are accountable? (for some, I think not)

      Q

      • Mike Hind says:

        Not even a LITTLE bit of an answer. That is an evasion if I ever saw one.
        Like… not even CLOSE to answering the question. Not even in the ballpark.

        That is not a reason at all to oppose equal rights, marriage equality or even homosexuality in general.

        But to answer yours (perhaps as an example for you):

        If you mean politicians and lawmakers when you say “those who are accountable”, then yes. Pressure WILL be put on them.

        If you don’t, who DO you mean.

        • Question says:

          So because you say that my answer ISN’T a real answer, it must be true?

          That “savior” complex seems to be creeping in again, Mike. . .

          The concept that because you think something is an evasion, it must be truth is absolutely wrong – period.

          This is one of my problems with this discussion – when one does not agree with a stance expressed, it is dismissed.

          Check the ego at the door sir as I have not attacked nor will I.

          Q

          • Mike Hind says:

            No because it’s not an answer. Break it down and you’re saying “The reason to oppose it is because we oppose it.”

            I’m not dismissing your stance, I’m saying it’s not a stance!

            “The reason to oppose it is that the law hasn’t changed”? How is that an answer?

            • Question says:

              You asked if there is ANY reason to oppose it without religion involved? I said you can oppose it because it is law – - how is that not an answer?

              Again, because you say it is not a stance doesn’t make it true.

              Q

              • Mike Hind says:

                Wow.

                “We oppose equal rights and marriage equality (i.e. changing the law to be less exclusive) because it’s the law.”
                Again. “A reason to oppose changing the law is because it’s the law.”

                This is what you’re saying.

                Mindboggling.

                Or is there something else that you’re saying.
                Do I have it wrong? If so, can you explain how?

          • Mike Hind says:

            (oh, and the “”Savior” complex” thing? That’s YOUR construct. It’s something YOU made up. It’s not, like, a real thing. It’s just a fantasy in your own mind.)

  34. CommonSense says:

    Aside from the deplorable issue at hand, I would like to know what the Corporation of Hamilton has to do with Colombia…?

  35. Lay down! says:

    You no wants funny we have 20 people attacking Mike H and he giving st8 answer to all your questions and he really is making a mockery out of all of u! Just leave him alone cuz all of u are really sounding ridiculous! You even accused him of using different user names so he must be hitting the buttons right! Well done! LMAO!!

    • Mike Hind says:

      Not trying to make a mockery… I’m honestly curious as to why they think that other people have to follow the rules of THEIR religion.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And, if not, what reason there is for all this hate.

      • Dear friend says:

        Well mike when you accept the fact that males having sex with males is a gross violation of our moral code (not religious code) you will understand. Its not only religion that eschew this practice. Mores are shaped by other agencies than simply religion. Why can’t you accept that.

        • Commenter says:

          Please explain how “males having sex with males is a gross violation of our moral code.”

          Also please explain why females having sex with females is not.

          • The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

            males having sex with males and females having sex with females is equally gross and sick

            • Mike Hind says:

              So, because YOU don’t like it, people should be denied rights?
              What gives you that right?

              Is anyone forcing you to have sex with men?
              Is anyone forcing you to do ANYTHING against your will?

        • Mike Hind says:

          Ridiculous. This is just a ridiculous statement.

          What possible other “shaping agency” says that you should oppose this?

          • Dear friend says:

            culture, tradition, reason all inform our mores not simply religion.

            • Mike Hind says:

              And why should those affect ANYONE else?

              • Mike Hind says:

                And… “reason”?

                Seriously? You show NO reasoning whatsoever!

                • My Kind says:

                  There’s no educating some people Mike.

                • Dear friend says:

                  So you can be rude and its okay Right?
                  Your so funny with your superiority complex.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    More lashing out.

                    Why can’t you just address the issue.

                    Why do you think you have the right to impose the rules of your morals and your religion onto ANYONE else?

                    (And, just for the record, the one with the superiority complex would be the one claiming that a group of people is morally inferior based on their skin colour… that’d be you)

        • Mike Hind says:

          Here’s a question, taking your goalpost moving as true (which it isn’t):

          Is there a reason that your personal moral code should affect ANYONE else?

          Is there any reason at all that you should have any sort of say in what people do in private, and, because of what they do in private, to deny them rights of any sort?

          Would you accept that, were it to happen to you?

      • Ya got me Rollin says:

        You mean hatred toward organized religion.

    • Dear friend says:

      whatever,einstein wannabe. lol!

      • Mike Hind says:

        Exactly. How DARE he try to be smart and refute your posts with intelligence!

  36. Ernest Hemingway says:

    @Mike Hind

    On a previous article, which can be found here:

    http://bernews.com/2011/07/photos-sybil-joins-london-gay-pride-parade/

    You said: “Now, if the CHURCHES want to ban THEMSELVES from performing gay weddings, then that’s one thing”……”Because they’re not the government.” You then go on to state that churches are “a private group offering a service only to members of that group that only affects members of that group”

    How do you reconcile these statements with your stance on this thread where you are clearly against discrimination against homosexuals on religious grounds?

    • Mike Hind says:

      All those questions were answered on that page. As we discussed the other day.

    • Come Correct says:

      I know I’m not Mike but just as homosexuals want the right to not be discriminated against, the church has that right too and it is the belief of the church that marriage is a union between a man and a woman so you can’t tell the church to marry you, if you were a gay couple, because that would be discrimination against the churches belief. Church isn’t the only place you can get married and there’s nobody that can stop you from having your own ceremony if you want it. I can’t speak for Mike but I’m pretty sure that’s close to what he meant. I’ve seen you post this before and I really think its just to be antagonistic because its not hard to see equal rights means equal rights.

      • J Galt says:

        Hi Come Correct,

        you say : “..homosexuals want the right to not be discriminated against, the church has that right too”

        Do you mean to suggest that the Church has rights? Or the indivduals that make up the church have rights?

        • Come Correct says:

          I would think the congregation makes up the church, without that it’s just a building.

          • J Galt says:

            So would I be correct in understanding that you believe that any individual would be well within their rights to refuse to marry a couple based on their sexuality?

            • Come Correct says:

              On an individual basis, if it is you belief then yes. However, hypothetically , if I was gay and wanted to marry my man and went to the registrar general to do so, a government service to the people, all people, then no, your personal opinion cannot be used to discriminated while performing a public service. At most you could ask to be excused from performing that service based on your belief. If that is the case, on religious grounds, I hope you aren’t caught having a drink on a bars CCTV or you should be charged to the fullest extent of the law for discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Happy? I can see what you were doing, I enjoy mind games too.

            • J Galt says:

              Would you also afford those same individuals the right to refuse to rent their property to an individual based on their sexuality?

              • Come Correct says:

                Yes of course….as soon as they can back that up with scripture, and I was raised in the church. The thing is a landlord is not legally allowed entry into their premises without consent of the renters. So what glives anyone the right to enter someone’s bedroom with their mind? So many people here are concerned with the perceived mechanics of a homosexual lifestyle. This is all coming from a guy who 2 or 3 years ago felt no way about using any and every derogatory name under the sun for homosexuals. I don’t sit here and contemplate every and anything homosexuals could possibly do for one because its a bit gross to me still, to me there are few things more beautiful than the female anatomy and two BECAUSE I HAVE NO CLUE AND DON’T CARE WHAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE DOES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Then I discovered something that made me feel better than my unwarranted hate, its called tolerance.

              • Come Correct says:

                sorry that’s those fat thumbs of mine again….wanna hate me cuz I HAVE fat thumbs? Anyway I knew a 90 year old lesbian, she and her partner before they passed literally enjoyed eachothers company, nothing more, they were both too old for anything else, but one thing I can guarantee you is that they were happy. Why is.it that people feel they have the right to deny that from someone else. Has anyone on this thread tried to walk a mile in their shoes? It sickens me to think there are people out there that feel no way about denying someone the happiness they are entitled to.

            • J Galt says:

              Sorry Come Correct I am going to need you to clarify your position.

              You have said that you agree with Mike that an individual should be allowed to discriminate against another individual based on sexuality, in relation to providing a service (Marriage).

              You also said you agreed that individuals have the right to refuse to rent their property to an individual based on their sexuality.

              Is that correct?

              • Come Correct says:

                Now I see why Mike stops answering certain people. If you read what I put in entirety entirety without leaving bits out that aren’t convenient for you to twist into your point I think that might clarify my position for you, but I’ll oblige one last time. I am I guess what most would call an atheist, so if I was performing a union of two people, a public service I cannot refuse that because I have no practice to support a stance against it. Even if I was still a Christian, IMO I would only have the right to excuse myself from performing that service and allow someone else to do it. Did you know the church also has the right not to marry people that have been divorced because it is their belief and literally has scripture verses to back it up? Unlike having scripture verses to back up rental of property and I’m almost dead sure the bible calls for us to love thy neighbor. Some here are saying they love the homosexual just not the act, well have fun proving their act in court without being slapped with invasion of privacy. You can’t discriminate a person for what you assume they may be doing. Doesn’t that just sound ridiculous? If you feel you have a strong enough stance to deny someone the right to accommodation based on sexual orientation then fine, just be prepared to back it up in court. Church folk are entitled to their beliefs but how you can back up intolerance when the bible teaches against it is beyond me and any lawyer with so much as skittles for brains would use your own bible to tear you apart in court.

      • J Galt says:

        Hello Come Correct

        You write

        “Now I see why Mike stops answering certain people. If you read what I put in entirety entirety without leaving bits out that aren’t convenient for you to twist into your point”

        I am afraid I have to disagree with your statement, and I ask as a gesture of good faith that you withdraw it.

        I am not trying to twist your words to suit my argument; I am trying to understand your ethical system. I am asking questions not to trap you or to “play mind games” as you put it.

        Allow me to explain with examples:

        I asked

        “So would I be correct in understanding that you believe that any individual would be well within their rights to refuse to marry a couple based on their sexuality?”

        You replied

        “On an individual basis, if it is you belief then yes”

        I then followed up with

        “Would you also afford those same individuals the right to refuse to rent their property to an individual based on their sexuality?”

        To which you replied

        “Yes of course….as soon as they can back that up with scripture”

        I then ask you to clarify your position

        “You have said that you agree with Mike that an individual should be allowed to discriminate against another individual based on sexuality, in relation to providing a service (Marriage).

        You also said you agreed that individuals have the right to refuse to rent their property to an individual based on their sexuality.

        Is that correct?”

        What I am gathering is you think that Christians are able to discriminate against homosexuals because the bible says its ok, but non-Christians cannot. (Correct me if I am wrong)

        There is no need to claim I am twisting what you have said, I am asking you for clarification.

        Perhaps to clarify your position you can answer the questions Ernest had asked Mike

        Mike had said earlier that a church should be allowed to say no because a church is “a private group offering a service only to members of that group that only affects members of that group”

        These questions were asked for the sake of clarification And the great debater that Mike is he refused to answer yet claims every time when mentioned that he did. (poor form Mike, poor form)

        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 discrimination if they do?

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

        • Mike Hind says:

          I’ve answered the questions. I refuse to answer leading follow up questions. My position is clear. You trying to twist what I said as some bizarre logical fallacy of “You said A so you must mean B” is a game that I am not interested in and refuse to play.

          We’ve been through ALL of this before, over and over.

          You repeating the same slippery argument isn’t going to make it any more valid.

          And, given the way that YOU debate and refuse to actually SAY anything solid? Your opinion of form is completely irrelevant.

        • Come Correct says:

          You just did it again, you’re quoting some of what I wrote and leaving other bits out. I don’t see why you need clarification unless you’re genuinely interested in my personal opinion, because that is simply all it is. That’s why there are examples of my personal experiences that bring me to my feeling on the issue. I’ll give you my personal opinion on your questions.

          1. The church has the choice, but if they do decide to turn people away because of sexual orientation, and this is where it gets iffy and requires tolerance and respect on both sides, it is discrimination with the backing of religious belief.

          2. Just got answered.

          3. I don’t know, haven’t thought about it to that extent but a private establishment like that requires a membership or accompaniment by a member. If they wish to deny membership based on sexual orientation, for one I hope they a good reason like religious belief or some form of moral backing because I don’t think “because I think it’s icky” will hold up very well in court and also I believe clubs like this have a board and not everyone on that board may share your views. Also there’s the issue of how do you know the sexual orientation of a person? If they are making a scene of it, well that’s really inappropriate for anyone of any sexual orientation and could be grounds for a ban. Then there’s the issue that ‘Bob’ your regular and life long member could be going home to molest his children when he finishes his beer but it’s ok for him to frequent the club because he hasn’t been caught and you don’t know? Even if you did know it isn’t up to you to deal with it, it’s up to the law and if convicted then I would say yes ban ‘Bob’. The most tout could initially do is report him but its not actually illegal to be gay anymore.

          For me it’s a whole lot more simple than that. I simply feel nobody should be denied the right to be happy in the way of their choosing as long as it doesn’t harm others. However, when it comes to law and what actually classifies as discrimination it isn’t that simple. Would be nice if it was though.

  37. Old Broad says:

    Oh my…Donal Smith can’t even make an apology without cherry-picking who it’s meant for. He chose to make offensive remarks against a certain segment of the population (homosexuals) and somehow believes it would only offend them. Offensive, insensitive remarks made against any specific group of people surely offend all right-thinking individuals, so his apology should be to everyone, not just those “affected in this way”.

    To those who are raising their voices against homosexuals having legal protection from discrimination I ask this: If your child/sibling/other relative or loved one were not protected under the law against discrimination because of their sexual orientation, would you not wish for the laws to be changed so that they can live their lives on an equal footing with everyone else?

    As for statements from several people advocating that homosexuality is a choice, can any of you give me a good reason why anyone would choose to be thus, especially given how much hatred and ridicule they are likely to experience in their community? And yes, I know there are some who form homosexual relationships (usually only briefly) out of curiosity, fear of the opposite sex, making a statement of independence, etc.

    As for the issue of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples, legalizing their sexual activity is not the point, which seems to be the main focus of some. More important is that they have the same legal protections that conventional marriages allow.

    By the way, when I mention “homosexuals”, in the interests of brevity, I mean to include lesbians also.

  38. aceboy says:

    Old Broad. The people who are raising their voices simply choose to ignore the fact that people they know, or support, are gay. They won’t answer you because having a gay child or friend or MP is just….well impossible. It is denial to the highest degree and frankly completely dishonest. Yet they claim to be pious christians.

    Mike Hind…you have the patience of a saint.

  39. My Kind says:

    Can’t believe this is a problem. (Very sorry I’ve not been online for a few minutes, I just learned the tricky bit to Bye Bye Miss American Pie).

    • Mike Hind says:

      Not sure exactly what you’re trying to do here, Trumpety Trump, or what you’re trying to say…

      Care to explain?

  40. aranger says:

    “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31
    Exodus 21:20-21
    Exodus 35:2
    Leviticus 12:5
    Leviticus 18:19
    Leviticus 19:19
    Leviticus 19:27
    Leviticus 20:9-10
    Leviticus 20:13
    Leviticus 20:18
    Leviticus 20:27
    Leviticus 21:9
    Leviticus 21:17-21
    Leviticus 24:14-16
    Leviticus 25:44-45
    Deuteronomy 13:5-10
    Deuteronomy 13:12-15
    Deuteronomy 17:2-7
    Deuteronomy 22:20-21
    Deuteronomy 23:1-2
    Deuteronomy 25:11-12
    Mark 12:19
    Luke 16:18
    1 Corinthians 11:5
    Ephesians 5:22-24
    1 Timothy 2:11
    1 Peter 2:18
    Ezekiel 16:49-50
    Matthew 10:14-15

  41. My Kind says:

    Aranger:

    Peter Pan page 4
    Superman – chapter 1
    Here Comes Santa – the last page

    More good fiction for your list.

    Now I’m off to learn Jingle bells but I keep getting stuck after the seventh note…

  42. My Kind says:

    If the church decides to not marry a gay couple simply because they are gay – that’s unfortunately to be expected. They already refuse to marry many people who have been divorced so discrimination is nothing new to them. However, in doing so the church should not be afforded any extra protection than anyone else who might have discriminated in a similar way.

    The church is no more special than any other person or organization. The only real difference is that church people believe in a magic fairy man in the sky.

    …..and they expect to be taken seriously!

    • Mike Hind says:

      The church performs weddings. They have nothing to do with marriages.

  43. Dear friend says:

    The Christian community needs to accept that they cannot impose their morals on a secular society. Historically the secular society was shaped by the Christian church and we assumed the moral framework of society was common sense and biblical. The fear that the Christian community has is the impact of legislation on the sense of right and wrong to the citizens. The christian community need to establish to its adherents that the World (secular society) is distinctly different from the church. They are not bedfellows or friends. They secular society does not have the same aim, goal, ambition or values and cannot be relied upon as the source of authority for the standard of right and wrong.

    It is going in a completely different direction. Christians should exert their influence as much as possible because they live here too. We all must vote and speak to what we consider in the best interest of society but whey can not force the secular world to adapt their morals. They are unconverted and do not accept the principle of submission to God because they do not love him or his ways. This being said. If the activities of the Homosexual are considered morally depraved by the Christian community, the christian is free to say so!

    It is alright for them to be Gay and it is alright for the Christian to speak his mind. This homosexual bravado which is increasing as the society comes under the influence of the homosexuals and their supporters economic threat or verbal attacks or media influence should not leave the Christian feeling like a freak! The secular society feel no pain in calling Christians insulting names without there being any rancor. Christians must not expect them to defend their cause. Yet christians must not lay lame and not speak up. As such I applaud Mr. Smith for the courage of his convictions but civility and respect should always attend our communication. After all we must do all that we can to live peacefully among all men.

    I believe that Homosexuals should be protected and respected but their “immoral” practices do not need to be accepted and it is alright for their morals to be publically rejected. This can be done openly without fear of reprisals. They feel that their view of public life should be the norm and that everyone should follow their understanding of the public discourse and values. Christians feel the same as well. Yet we must recognize that this is a democratic society and legislation shapes the policies that we all have to live with. Christians must use the legislative process by voting and speaking up to influence other citizens to see your values and rationale but in no way should disrespect to others be practiced even though many of the same ones demanding respect are most disrespectful to the Christian. THe world (secular society) is not your friend. Yet you are called to love them.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And again, you misrepresent the facts.

      No one has a problem with your beliefs, it’s when you impose them – such as with the opposition to marriage equality – onto others that there is a problem.

      This essay of yours is a lesson in contradiction. You say that gay folks should be protected but “their practives” not accepted…

      You act as though, by people becoming more accepting and tolerant, you’re losing something or being oppressed in some way.

      You act as though people demanding that YOUR beliefs and morals be imposed on others is ok, but saying “No” is disrespectful.

      You act as though calling Christians insulting names is on par or worse than denying or supporting the denial of equal rights to an entire sector of our community based on YOUR personal beliefs.

      You’ve shown yourself to be a liar, time and again (just the other day, you claimed you weren’t a Christian and that it WASN’T your religion that shaped your views… and now this?).

      So, here is is, once again:

      Is there ANY reason to oppose equal rights that doesn’t involve ANYONE else following the rules of your religion?

      • Dear friend says:

        I am not a Christian!
        That is a term that was used for centuries to oppress people. I do believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. If you read carefully you would see that I refer to what the Christians should do because I understand what their goals are. Just like you are not a homosexual yet you defend them.
        Be clear I said in my opening statement that CHristians should not impose their morals on others. So please read carefully and be humble.

      • Dear friend says:

        YOu are misrepresenting my statement and trying to put words in my mouth. That is typical and a trick that was used for years by people like you. YEt My words stand and if you read them carefully you would probably agree with them. You are probably upset because they come from me.

        • Mike Hind says:

          More outright lies. This is insane.

          I ONLY have a problem with your words. I don’t know you at all, so this “it’s personal” thing is nonsense.

          You talk out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting yourself word by word sometimes.

          Any word on why anyone else should have to follow the rules of your moral code?

          • Dear friend says:

            Clearly you cant read well. Show me where I contradicted myself!

            • Mike Hind says:

              Clearly, you’re a lying bigot who can’t keep their story straight.

              You oppose marriage equality, think it’s ok to refer to gay folks in the most horrible ways, reducing them to nothing more than a sexual act, yet say that we shouldn’t impose our morals on them.

              You’re ridiculous.

              • Dear friend says:

                Watch your mouth Mike. YOu dont like gays to be called freaks but you decide its okay to call me a lying bigot. I suspect that you are a racist who needs an education.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  The difference is this:

                  You lie and you are a bigot.

                  I’m not calling names, I am stating facts.

                  You are ridiculous.

  44. My Kind says:

    The Christian community needs to decide whether they are following the bible or not. They continually pick parts of it and preach about man should not lie with man, yet they say nothing of the fact that the bible condones slavery. The bible also states that a woman who wears more than one fabric at once should be put to death. Personally I believe this proves that the Bible is a load of BS and should be treated as such.

    So which is it going to be Christians? Admit that the bible is pure brainwashing BS, back down on your ridiculous judgemental attitudes.

    Also, remember that according to the bible, any kind of sex (yes any kind) outside of marriage is a sin – so anyone who has experienced anything like this is already going to hell. This is unless you have prayed to the imaginary fairy in the sky and said sorry and promised not to do it ever again (yeah right).

    Honestly, it is difficult to take Christians seriously. Their belief system is simply the result of brainwashing.

    One more thing: There is no such thing as Christian child – only the child of Christian parents. Makes you think huh.

    • Dear friend says:

      I hear you.
      I dont think you understand the text and you have been poisoned by the incorrect theological interpretations. Thus I can see why you appear angry. The bible is simply saying that God is love and he encourages us to have faith in that fact and he will give us the power to live righteous lives. That is salvation in a nutshell. Hell is not for you it was for satan and his angels. Those who reject the love of God cannot keep his principles anyway. It is impossible to be a Christian without the power from Christ. The ones who will be destroyed are those who continually reject the Goodness of God and and seek to live a life of self-centerdness which leads to pain and suffering to others or the degeneracy of themselves.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And what of those of us that aren’t Christian? Why do we have to follow YOUR rules?

      • My Kind says:

        My Friend: I am not the one who has been poisoned by incorrect theological interpretations. I am anything but poisoned by them. The bible is complete BS and Christians all over the world have been poisoned by it. It is as simple as that. Anyone who believes in that rubbish is quite simply delusional – and brain washed. It is very sad.

        The bible has to be taught to children, since as adults, people would not be a easily fed the complete illogical lies contained in it. Religion relies on brainwashing people too young to know any better.

        Angry? Not me. I just feel sorry for people who have fallen under the spell of religion.

    • Mike Hind says:

      I disagree. Demanding that they follow the rules your way is just as intrusive as them demanding that someone else follow their rules.
      It’s not the hypocrisy that’s the problem. It’s the intrusion.
      They can believe whatever they want, so long as they don’t expect or demand anyone else to follow the rules based on that belief.