Poll Results: 58.5% Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

June 24, 2014

According to a recent poll by Profiles of Bermuda, nearly 6 in 10 voters [58.5%] oppose same-sex marriages, while 4 in 10 [38.4%] were in favour of such marriages and 3.2% were unsure.

1-Fullscreen capture 06242014 71259 AM

Differences by Age

By age, younger voters, those between the ages of 18 and 34, were more likely to support same-sex marriages [58.2%], the only age group to do so.

However, the older one got, the more likely they were to oppose same-sex marriages; 60.1% of those aged between 35 and 54 did not support same sex marriages, as did 75.2% of those over 55.

Differences by Race

Results by race were equally compelling. Nearly 6 in 10 of white voters [57.8%] and just over half of other voters [neither black nor white] 52.1%, were in favour of same-sex marriages. However, nearly 7 in 10 black voters [69.9%] were opposed to same-sex marriages.

Differences by Income

While slightly more than half [50.8%] of households that earned in excess of $100,000 were in support of same-sex marriages, two-thirds of households earning less than $50,000 and households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 were opposed to same-sex marriages [66.7% and 65.7% respectively].

Survey Notes

In explaining the survey, Profiles of Bermuda said, “There were no statistically significant differences by gender. Category totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. The survey was conducted among 375 registered voters between 20 March 2014 and 18 May 2014 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5%. Some 69% of respondents were obtained by landlines, 24% by cell phones and 7% via the internet. Data for all demographics were weighted to reflect the 2010 Census.”

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (283)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. I agree says:

    I bet the statistics are a little higher than that! Homosexuality will kill off the human race! We were given life to produce life. Until man and man or woman and woman can lie down together and produce life,than I will not support homosexuality or gay marriage.

    • Common Sense says:

      To suggest that homosexuality will kill off the human race is totally absurd. We have had homosexuals in our societies for thousands of years and the world’s population has continued to ever expand. What will kill off the human race is the hatred humans have for those who are different from themselves, whether it is ethnicity, religion or any other excuse for demeaning or denigrating others to the point where those being hated and despised can be considered to be somehow less than human. Just look at the conflicts going on all over the world today. Not one of them has anything whatever to do with homosexuality or sexual orientation.

      The vast majority of us are attracted to persons of the opposite sex and that will always be the case. What we need to do is to treat all other human beings with respect and dignity no matter what their race, color, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. It’s a really simple concept. It’s called equal rights for all.

    • Mike says:

      LOL… nutcase.

    • B.O.B says:

      Do you not support infertile men or women as well? What about their ability to marry?

      • Brock says:

        Or just don’t want have children in general?

        • Brock says:

          *don’t want to have

        • Redo says:

          Exactly! I didn’t get married to have kids. I got married because I loved someone. Never had kids – never wanted them or needed them. No, not selfish, just a realist who knows what they want and don’t want.

      • I agree says:

        How many infertile couples(man and woman) do you know of versus fertile couples, and how many fertile gay couple that you know of that have the ability to produce life TOGETHER?? NONE!!!!

        • Mike Hind says:

          Since when does the ability to have kids factor in to marriage?

          I know you’re anti-marriage equality, but at least use REAL reasons and not stuff you made up.

          • MPP says:

            Um, since the dawn of time, and unanimously agreed in EVERY human civilization since man first walked the earth.

            Of course, I’m not talking about “the ability to have kids” applied to individual couples, but as applied to the CATEGORY of the committed, heterosexual union, versus the homosexual union, or the union of 3 or more people, or any other paradigm.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Nope. Not even a little bit true.

              Nowhere in ANYTHING I signed when I got married did it say that I had to have kids.

              You cannot show me ANY evidence to back up your claim.

              And polygamy is a different subject. I know you want to muddy the waters because you know your argument isn’t strong, but bringing in other subjects is not cool.

              If the ability to have kids is a prerequisite to being married, then it has to apply to ALL, not just the ones you don’t want getting married.

              • MPP says:

                “Nowhere in ANYTHING I signed when I got married did it say that I had to have kids.”

                Did you miss this part of my response?

                “Of course, I’m NOT talking about “the ability to have kids” applied to INDIVIDUAL COUPLES, but as applied to the CATEGORY of the committed, heterosexual union.” (Emphasis added)

                Societies the world over have always described the marriage as the union between a man and a woman precisely becuase that’s the only CATEGORY of relationship that will produce future members of that society.

                This is also in recognition of the common sense fact that, ideally (I stress ideally), the best possible situation is that children be raised in the context of a committed union of their own mother and father.

                This is a discussion of category, namely the heterosexual union. Not individual unions within that category. Raising the infertile or intentionally childless heterosexual couple does nothing to harm this point.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Did YOU miss THIS part of my response?

                  “If the ability to have kids is a prerequisite to being married, then it has to apply to ALL, not just the ones you don’t want getting married.”

                  Oh, and when you describe marriage as “committed, heterosexual union”, you’re stacking the deck.

                  NOWHERE does it say that procreation is part of marriage.

                  And this is a discussion of Marriage and whether it should be SOLELY a heterosexual union, not about a heterosexual union.

                  “Societies the world over have always described the marriage as the union between a man and a woman precisely becuase that’s the only CATEGORY of relationship that will produce future members of that society.”

                  Not even CLOSE to true. Not only your logic, but the fact that societies the world over have NOT “always described marriage as the union between a man and a woman”. That is simply and utterly false.

              • MPP says:

                Further, polygamy was not in view when I said “the union of 3 or more people”. It was a three-way union (or more-way union).

                Interestingly, even polgamy was bunch of male-female unions, only featuring one man between several of them.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Polygamy is a completely different subject. You keep bringing it up.
                  Why is that?

                  • MPP says:

                    Sorry. Rather than saying “polygamy was not in view”, I should have said that “I never meant polygamy in the first place”.

                    I understand the confusion I caused but, I never meant polygamy oringally (i.e. didn’t intentionally bring it up).

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Then what, exactly, were you referring to when you said “…or the union of 3 or more people…”?

                    • MPP says:

                      I was referring to a 3-way union, where each of the three are married to each other. A “group” marriage concept which is also not new. (e.g. a “throuple”)

                      This differs from polygamy, where each of the women are married to the man, but the women are not married to each other.

                • Pastor Syl Hayward says:

                  Actually, MPP,that is not entirely true, either. There were some societies where the relationship was one woman to several men. The basic criteria for polygamy was to have the means and the ability to support the extra bodies.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Oh, and “… unanimously agreed in EVERY human civilization since man first walked the earth.”

              You’re wrong. There are MANY societies where they had same sex marriages.

              But don’t let that stop you from just making stuff up.

              • MPP says:

                Well, since I can’t provide evidence of absence, maybe you can provide evidence for historical same sex “marriage” (not same-sex unions or relationships), where the same-sex relationship was both normalized and elevated to the same status as the heterosexual marriage.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, throughout Europe, Africa and the Americas, there are records of legally recognized marriages and partnerships between people of the same gender.
                  Do an OUNCE of research, please.

                  Oh, and your claim was “Um, since the dawn of time, and unanimously agreed in EVERY human civilization since man first walked the earth.” in response to “Since when does the ability to have kids factor in to marriage?”

                  I’m not asking you to prove evidence of absence. YOU made the claim that the ability to have kids is a factor in marriage and has been “since the dawn of time, and unanimously agreed in EVERY human civilization since man first walked the earth.”
                  That is a statement, with emphasis. Surely you can back it up.

                  I await your response… the one containing evidence of your claim.

                  • MPP says:

                    I did just over an ounce of research. In my research, the same-sex “marriage” existed infrequently and was not “normalized and elevated to the same status as the heterosexual marriage”. My phrasing in quotes here is important.

                    Regarding my statement about “kids in marriage”, from your responses, I’m still not sure if my “category” vs “individual unions” distinction helped you to see my point.

                    Let me restate my original statement hopefully more helpfully.

                    Every civilization has recongnized the unique ability of the committed heterosexual relationship to both create and best care for children. This unique relationship was then honored, elevated and protected by marriage rules/benefits, as this relationship is key to a society’s survival, since it makes possible the continuation of that society (through procreation) and stabilizes the society (through proper care and training of children).

                    Children aren’t a prerequisite for EACH heterosexual marriage, or any individual heterosexual marriage, but the CATEGORY of heterosexual marraige has been a prerequisite for a strong society.

                    Since I said every (or EVERY, which is strong, as you correctly point out), you can refute such a strong claim by pointing out just one historical society that didn’t.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      But that’s not what you said.

                      We’re discussing procreation as a prerequisite. My stance is that it is NOT a prerequisite. You said it always is and always has been.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Always means always. That means, by definition, every one.
                      You keep saying “I don’t mean each individual one”, but that’s what “always” means.
                      And in the CATEGORY of marriage, the ability to have children simply is NOT a prerequisite.

                      And I did point out several. You even admitted that they existed in your first line.

          • I agree says:

            The ability to have kids factors a lot in marriage especially when you both want kids or don’t want kids or just one of you wants kids,99% of the time in relationships including marriage,the talk and ability having kids factors greatly in deciding who you are going to spend the rest of your life with.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Care to back that stat up with data?

              And you’re evading the question. That’s not what I asked.

              • LOL (Original TM*) says:

                One question why then do so many gay couples then turn around and adopt kids then?

                LOL just playing devils advocate here. Personally the way I see it is it is impossible to have a gay marrage do to the fact the it was ordained to be between a man and woman. These arrangements really can “only” be recognized as unions. and people choosing to live together playing house for a while nothing more. I do not dislike gay people I just would not choose that life style. It just gives me that wrong feeling personally.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  We’re not talking about the DESIRE to have kids, just the ABILITY.

                  “it was ordained to be between a man and woman”…

                  By whom? Remember, we’re talking about rights and the legal side, not the religious side, as the religious side isn’t a prerequisite.
                  The involvement of the church is an optional choice made by the individuals getting married and is NOT an essential part of a marriage.
                  Also, churches perform weddings, not marriages.

                  So… ordained by whom?

                  To say it can only be recognized as unions is incorrect.

                  As for “choosing that lifestyle”? No one is asking you to.
                  No one is even asking you to like it.

                  All they’re asking for is for equal rights.

            • Girl on Fire says:

              But that’s true for straight AND gay people. You are implying the ability is simply biological, but it’s more than just biology – emotional/financial desires factor in as well. Of course gay partners can have children. Just like infertile people can have children. They may or may not be biologically related to the children, but that doesn’t make them any less of a parent. Your sexual orientation doesn’t have any impact on whether you desire or are able to have children.

              • LOL (Original TM*) says:

                I disagree gay couples dont have any possiblity to have their own children at all. To bring in infertil people into the argument is misdirection at best the issues only seem similar but I dont see them in the same light. Just like gays being descriminated against relating to blacks or any other skin color does not quite hit the same grounds. I feel these things are thrown into the argument to try to gather support and simpathy from those uneffected by the issue so that gay people might get their way. Sorry for sounding heartless but I try to look at issues unattached from emotion.

                • LOL (Original TM*) says:

                  To add that is why I can understand blacks emotions,white emotions, jews emotions and gays emotion issues on a human level. However I believe in right and wrong and I can’t find anything to justify this type of union other than a passing in the night expariment. Like a— sex in general why? You realize thats where stuff comes out to be expelled from the body. Even the cells lining it point out help push out not in. I know I’m not dealing with lesbins cause I’m a man if I was a woman I might then comment on that. Just my opinion sorry if it does not match yours but that life is it.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  If you look, these things you’re referring to are usually brought up in response to other arguments.

                  Bringing infertility into the argument is usually in response to people saying that the ability to have kids is an essential part of marriage, when it clearly isn’t. If it were, infertile people would be banned from marriage.

                  The reference to racial inequality comes up when people use the same arguments that bigots back in the day used.
                  No one is saying that the struggle is the same, just that the opposition to it is very similar.

                  Its intention is not to gather support and sympathy (and if it were, so what? What’s wrong with support and sympathy?). It’s a response to the arguments that anti-equality people use.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      Actually, the human race will kill off the human race, homosexuality won’t play into it in the slightest.

    • Brock says:

      Your stupidity concerning homosexuality and same sex marriage has already been refuted, but I’ll add this. I would certainly hope there was more to the life to humans existing on this planet than procreation. Luckily it’s not. That would be a depressing reality to live in.

      • I agree says:

        It must already be depressing living in your reality with your thinking!!

        • Redo says:

          Why because he doesn’t feel the need to procreate? Far too many people have kids after marriage because they think they are SUPPOSED to have kids, because they need to check a box. When in reality, not everyone should have kids. Many people have a hard enough time taking care of themselves and shouldn’t have kids. We’d have a lot less unwanted kids if people didn’t have this “check the box” mentality.

        • Put pupils first says:

          Why would Brock be depressed?
          You appear to be the one filled with hate!

          • LOL (Original TM*) says:

            what did he say that was hatefull he simple formulated an opinion based on the statement made. When I read it I thought he/she must not get much. I’m betting its a he not a she.

            LOL

            • Mike Hind says:

              Did you not read the things “I agree” wrote?

              How can you ask “what did he say that was hateful?”
              Read the whole page.
              THAT is what he said that was hateful.

    • ya right says:

      There are some things in life that I will just never subscribe to. Gay marriage is one of them. No disrespect, but I think it’s a disgrace and simply disgusting.

      • Bdaboy says:

        No disrespect, but I think you’re a disgusting excuse for a human being.

        • MPP says:

          Which is not what he said, but anyway…

          • Bdaboy says:

            And obviously went way over your head. But anyway….

            • MPP says:

              Gotta admit… it totally did!
              **reading more carefully now**

        • Impressive says:

          that’s a bit harsh for somebody sharing their honest opinion.. Disgusting excuse for a human being?? really?? I think two men lying in the same bed is disgusting but I don’t go around referring to them as disgusting excuses for human beings.. cho

          • Bdaboy says:

            Why do you bother thinking about it? What business is it if yours? The thought of you lying in bed is disgusting to me. But I don’t waste my time thinking about it. Obviously you have gay sex on your mind a lot ….which is more than a little disturbing.

            • Impressive says:

              So when someone mentions the word football, don’t you think about a round object being kicked around a feel?? If someone mentions the word lunch time, do you not think about food??? just asking. Your being cynical and overly simplistic. I never say I go around thinking about men in bed, but my mind is visual, and when I hear or read a word, I automatically think about the meaning of that word, or at the very least, what I associate with that word.

              • Put pupils first says:

                So you admit you’ve been thinking about two men lying in bed quite a lot today then?

                • Impressive says:

                  I guess, and two women as well. As far as I know men and women are gay,, just saying

                • LOL (Original TM*) says:

                  misdirection in an attempt to devalue and discredit his opinion then, very mature and makes your side look real good…………………………

                  LOL

              • Julianna says:

                Seriously, if you cannot master simple spelling and grammar how do you expect for anybody to believe that anything you’re saying is intelligent or in any way relevant?

                • LOL (Original TM*) says:

                  Lots of people can’t spell well how does that devalue their opinion? I know highly educated people that cant spell well ask them any math question you want they can answer it correctly everytime faster that you with an excel spreadsheet and what?

                  LOL

              • LOL (Original TM*) says:

                I dont agree with you on much (mostly politics) but on this I agree your point was you dont go around calling people names based on their lifestyle choices you just know those choices are not one you would make (is that correct). I can’t understand why people Bdaboy responds to your rejection of his choice as a rejection of him or something thus he attacked you. Happens alot but is completely not productive as Bdaboy is not gonna change your mind on this thus excepting “all” of him and you wil not change his mind. Sometimes i think people are desperate to belong to a group and then fall in love with belonging really.

                LOL

      • Hmmm says:

        So you are all for denying people equal rights to spousal insurance, property ownership and application of inheritance laws ????????

        • LOL (Original TM*) says:

          I don’t see why if they “will” it why would this effect any of that. Can’t I leave you my house or car if I put you in my Will?

          LOL

      • Mike Hind says:

        No one is asking you to get married to someone of the same sex or do anything disgraceful.

        But why do YOU get to make the call as to whether or not someone else gets married?
        What does it have to do with you?

        • MPP says:

          @ Mike Hind:

          “But why do YOU get to make the call as to whether or not someone else gets married?”

          You realize that your question applies to you as well. All you’re saying is that you should get to make that call, and not people that disagree with you.

          … which is fine for you to say. But don’t pretend (1) everyone isn’t affect public policy changes that encaptulate what a society affirms, and (2) you don’t have the same desire you are criticizing (i.e. the right to make the call).

          • MPP says:

            [cleaning up the second sentence]

            … which is fine for you to say. But don’t pretend (1) everyone isn’t affected by public policy changes that encaptulate what a society affirms, and (2) you don’t have the same desire you are criticizing (i.e. the right to make the call).

            • Mike Hind says:

              The difference is: what I’m supporting is freedom and doesn’t involve restricting anyone… What those opposing are supporting is restricting the rights and happiness of other people, none of which affects them in any way at all.

              So, I ask again:

              What does anyone else’s marriage have to do with you?

              • LOL (Original TM*) says:

                But Mike we live in a highly resrictive society hence we have laws. These are things that do exactly what you say you enspouce while resricting the freedom to do things contray to the laws which we as a group have agreed to even if we are silent about them. Freedom is an illusion unless you are living on an island and its just you.

                LOL

                • Mike Hind says:

                  I don’t understand what you are saying here.

                  You’re not making sense.

          • Pastor Syl Hayward says:

            Actually, I think what is being said is that no-one who is not intimately involved should get to make the call about who gets married and who doesn’t. It shouldn’t be anybody else’s business except those who are getting married if they are two consenting adults – unless, of course, one of the partners is not in a position to consent, i.e. below the age of consent or (to put paid to the stupid bestiality argument) cannot consent because they are not human.

      • Common Sense says:

        I can really understand “ya right’s” point of view for him or her on a personal basis. For someone who is heterosexual it is very hard, if not impossible to understand why a fellow human being would be attracted to someone of the same sex or sexual orientation. I would find it disgusting personally to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. It is definitely not for me.

        But “ya right” has to realize that they are those who are deeply attracted to people of the same sex, and I would submit that the huge vast majority who are gay, can and do have committed loving relationships that harm absolutely no-one. I know of several dozen same sex couples in Bermuda who are in long term relationships with their partner, and who actually do a great deal of good in our society.

        We have just passed an amendment to our human Rights Act making it illegal to discriminate against our fellow human beings because of their sexual orientation. We now need to move on and work together to treat all law abiding citizens with respect and equal human rights. Not to do so is a disgrace and simply disgusting!

        • LOL (Original TM*) says:

          Just a question you own property and you wish to rent it based on your logic I wonder if you have any resons why you would not rent to someone based on the first meeting or do you give everyone a chance that they might be a good tenante if so I could introduce you to some people that stay right across from House of India would you give them a fair shake.

          LOL

    • Bermudian Living Abroad says:

      If you are so offended by Gays… Tell your heterosexual friends stop making gay babies -_-

    • really? says:

      Good job offending any woman who can not produce children because of medical reasons such as infertility. How do they fit into your calculations?

      • LOL (Original TM*) says:

        I don’t see how they are even relivent to the disscussion on gay unions.

        LOL

    • Steve Biko says:

      Are we smarter then animals, well at least they have it right!!!!!!!!!!

    • Really says:

      I thought I heard all the ignorance of a lifetime but you top the bill lol

  2. Huh says:

    No surprises here. The Bermuda Tea Party is alive and well in our beautiful Islands. Good news is that young Bermudians see things very differently from their very conservative parents/grand parents. Time will take care of this.

    • LOL (Original TM*) says:

      Again the Tea party are racist that want politial power. People that don’t support your idea are hardly Tea Party like at all really. By your logic I could call you a tea party like person based on the type of dog you like or any animal for that matter as long as I like a different one.

      LOL
      up the debate a bit take to the issue not the opinion of someone that has the right to the opinion.

  3. good says:

    Too bad it wasn’t 100% opposed

    • Um Um Like says:

      Too bad you’re still alive.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No need for that.

        Don’t meet hate with hate.

        • LOL (Original TM*) says:

          Saddly thats all this thread is so far people that hate on others for having a different opinion than theirs. Which boils this down to people are mad cause they arent excepted by others and vise versa. Where is all the evidence on weather or not this is an active choice or a passive one or noe choice at all. Absence of such evidence is not proof of correctness here.

          LOL

          • Mike Hind says:

            Not at all. It’s about people fighting to continue discriminating and people fighting against that.
            It’s not about having a different opinion, it’s about using that opinion as a basis to discriminate and deny equal rights.

  4. bermudaboy says:

    Do you really think homosexuality will kill off the human race. Give me a break, live and let live.

    • Redo says:

      Agree…many, many same sex couples are adopting the unwanted, abandoned, abused children of heteros. We should say THANK YOU!

  5. frank says:

    why do you think that god told noah to make sure that it was male and female to be taken into the ark.
    don’t want to sound all in the church but right is right
    when people turn from their wicket ways I will hear their voice and heal their land.

    • JH says:

      Frankly, if you believe in suspicious nonsense such as noah and the ark, then you should not be allowed to be part of the gene pool. Harry Potter was also told that the stairs move in another fictional story. Should we ban stairs too?

      • lol says:

        @KH best comment I’ve seen in a long time haha

      • serengeti says:

        If it’s ok to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, presumably we can also discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

      • MPP says:

        I believe it’s repugnant say of a fellow human who disagrees with you on an issue that they “should not be allowed to be part of the gene pool.”

        Agreeing with you is more important that I realized.

        However, I totally support you being a part of the gene pool.

      • yousillyfolks says:

        Jh how do you compare the Bible to Harry Potter? And the Idiots that cosign your comments..Jah works!

        • Angie says:

          They’re both great works of fiction.

        • Mike Hind says:

          You do get that some people don’t believe in the Bible, right?

          • LOL (Original TM*) says:

            However has any proven it to be wrong?

            LOL

            • Mike Hind says:

              Irrelevant.
              We’re talking about belief, not proof.

              (You’re also asking if anyone has proven a negative.

              As always, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one saying “Um… no. I don’t believe that.”)

      • Really says:

        She likely belives in Santa Claus. Too

    • Paul Clarke says:

      Hey Frank, “wicket” ways? I don’t remember any references to cricket in the Bible. LMAO. I’ll pay attention to your point when you can use proper grammar. You’ve just proven that not only are you ignorant but you’re borderline illiterate as well. Good luck making it through life.

      • Goose says:

        “And on the 8th day God created the Test Match, to the great enjoyment of man and the beasts of the land, sea and air. Satan saw this enjoyment and on the 14th day created the T20, however the faithful saw this was not good and remained unswayed.”

        The Book of Botham 1:1-2

        • Dan says:

          I assume the test match from the 8th day was still going strong on the 14th day

    • jt says:

      Religion has killed and continues to kill untold numbers….and yet people are worried about gays.

      • Celery™ says:

        “There are things about organized religion which I resent. Christ is revered as the Prince of Peace, but more blood has been shed in His name than any other figure in history. You show me one step forward in the name of religion and I’ll show you a hundred retrogressions. Remember, they were men of God who destroyed the educational treasures at Alexandria, who perpetrated the Inquisition in Spain, who burned the witches at Salem…”

        -Frank Sinatra

      • LOL (Original TM*) says:

        People may use religion for their own selfish ways but religion in it self has not killed anyone.

        LOL

    • Common Sense says:

      Can you please advise who exactly heard God having a chat with Noah. Please name one independent eye witness?

      • LOL (Original TM*) says:

        Please name one indepentent witness that can say he didn’t.

        LOL

        • Mike Hind says:

          Asking to prove a negative again…

        • Common Sense says:

          I’ve heard and seen numerous nonsensical statements in my life but this one LOL has to rank up there as one of the most absurd of all time! But I love the logic.

          One can argue that the vast majority of pronouncements in the bible are totally unprovable. Some quick examples – who witnessed Eve being tempted with forbidden fruit? And who wrote it down? Who saw Jonah being swallowed by a whale, and then being spat out? Who witnessed Noah and his family collecting hundreds of thousands of animals from all corners of the earth (polar bears, kangaroos and Komodo dragons come to mind). Apologies on this one because there was no one left to witness this amazing undertaking except Noah and his immediate family members who must have written down their first-hand account without exaggeration although I might question whether anyone knew how to write back then.

          But LOL has come up with a new way of establishing scientific truth. If you can’t find an independent eye witness to say it DID NOT happen, then it must be true. We could teach this philosophy in our schools. The mind boggles!

  6. campervan says:

    These numbers have been exaggerated with the exodus of young Bermudian talent to cities such as London where you will not be ostracised for being gay.
    The older conservative crowd, assisted by the AME mafia and the intolerant Labour party have helped chase away an important component of Bermuda’s future.

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      Yup. Yup. Yup.

    • Common Sense says:

      It is unfair to describe our Labour Party as intolerant. Yes, it applies to some of our present leaders, but the decision to decriminalize homosexuality in Bermuda was supported by Freddie Wade, Dame Lois Browne-Evans, Dr. Ewart Brown, Dame Jennifer Smith, and Alex Scott, all of whom voted to pass the so-called Stubbs Bill. Correct me if I’m wrong but each of these PLP politicians have held the position of Leader of the PLP. They all recognized that the law needed to be changed as an essential move to giving equal human rights to all. But, yes it’s a great shame that some of the present leadership of the PLP may not share the views of the giants on who’s shoulders they now stand.

      • campervan says:

        but right now the labour party here is stomping on human rights in multiple directions and making a mockery of liberal sensibilities.

  7. Seagull says:

    Everybody should have a watch of this – he sums up perfectly why populist opinions should not matter when it comes to granting basic civil rights:
    http://youtu.be/Y4Z7tl7Vy8U

  8. jt says:

    How about same sex unions? State sanctioned, nothing to do with the church? Marriage suggests religion is involved.

    Once again a telling demographic for these polls would be education level, but it is not provided. Why not?

    @I agree – The world’s population is growing at breakneck pace despite the existence of these non-reproducing homosexuals. Overpopulation is a threat to human survival – those damn heterosexuals are to blame.

    • Al says:

      There are religions that will marry a gay couple.

    • Family Man says:

      Income correlates very closely with education levels. The higher income bracket overwhelmingly supports same sex marriage.

      Unfortunately, due to the exodus of many young, highly educated and skilled Bermudians we seem to be left with an over abundance of the uneducated, ignorant, superstitious bigots.

      Honestly, if two people fall in love and want to get married, how does that affect you?

      • Family Man says:

        To clarify, the question was not directed at you JT, but to Bermuda in general. If two consenting adults want to marry, that’s their choice. They should have the same rights as anyone else whether same sex or not. The right to spousal insurance, property ownership, inheritance laws – everything.

        Similar arguments were used not very long ago to prohibit mixed race marriages with biblical prophecies of doom and gloom should such “unnatural” practice come to pass.

        • jt says:

          I whole heartedly agree. I was only pointing out that a poll removing any religious connotation (the term marriage) might prove interesting and perhaps show different results. Don’t confuse my post with supporting religion or religious beliefs that impact the rights of others.

          • Al says:

            Marriages are the responsibility of the registrar. The registrar simply delegates some of the responsibility to the church conducting the wedding.

    • I agree says:

      I have a suggestion for that, why don’t we become one big homosexual planet and wipe the human race out of existence.That will control over population!!! Tell that to the C R E A T O R!!

      • jt says:

        That’s quite an answer “I agree”. Very keen reflection on the issue.
        Still, I actually have no problem whatsoever with you believing whatever you wish to believe on the matter, up until the point where you feel your religious beliefs should govern other people’s freedoms.
        I feel religion is a bunch of hooey, but I support your right to practice it.
        Tell us specifically how gays, gay sex or gay marriage (unions) would have a negative impact on you personally.

      • Mike Hind says:

        If your argument against this is so strong, why do you have to go so over the top to make your point?

        No one is asking anyone else to be gay, except for you, right here.

        As for the Creator…

        Can you tell me why ANYONE else should have to follow the rules of your religion?
        Would you appreciate anyone else telling you that you should follow the rules of theirs?

      • Put pupils first says:

        You do realise nobody is forcing you into a same sex marriage?

      • Come Correct says:

        At least the planet might have a chance, great suggestion.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Religion has nothing to do with marriage.
      The Church don’t officiate marriages, they officiate weddings.

      And calling them “unions” is just creating a “separate but equal” situation. Is that what you want?

  9. I find it ironic that we’re worried about embracing Marriage Equality, because when I was growing
    up (in the 50’s/60’s and 70’s) we were all told that sex before marriage was sinful (especially for
    women….) and it was a sin to live together, as that probably meant that you were engaged in an
    intimate sexual relationship, which was a no no. So we were supposed to get married and then
    have the most intimate relationship with our spouse.

    So here’s the irony. In telling same gender familes that they can’t marry in Bermuda (because they can marry elsewhere), this is the message that we’re sending them: You can love each other, and you can live together, but we will try our hardest not to recognise you or your relationship. And we haven’t yet decided whether we’ll give you or your relationships the same rights as we give to opposite gender families.

    in Canada, public opinion was almost equally divided in 2002 when the laws of Ontario changed and now, having lived with marriage equality countrywide for about 10 years, only about 18% of the population are still against same gender marriage. You see, many of the worries that people had simply never materialised.

    Trying to oppose same gender marriage is saying no to commitment and it’s like trying to hold back
    the tide that’s already come in and we can try and fight it, or we can decide that the tide is part of
    nature and go with it.

    If we stop thinking about all the bad things that may happen and instead focus on the good things, then we can view the situation through a very different lens and this is what we are saying yes to:

    We’re saying yes to commitment;
    We’re saying yes to love and to couples who want to love honour and cherish each other;
    We’re saying yes to fidelity;
    We’re saying yes to the many Bermudians who’ve made their lives elsewhere so they can be who
    they are, and saying to them and their spouses:

    “Please come home, we love you and we accept you as you are, and we value your lives and relationships as much as we value any other persons life and relationships.

    And most importantly, we are saying yes to love, in all its many beautiful manifestations.

    • Jim Bob says:

      Whilst you make some valid point you also make more nonsensical points.

      Bermuda not having same sex marriage is down to strong Christian principles; that what it boils down to and I strongly support this stance. When it comes to same sex unions, well if two people of the same sex (or opposite sex) want to recognize their relationship in a union other than marriage then thats their choice. But when it comes to marriage which is a union specifically between a man and a woman ordained by God I have a problem when we start to stray from that.

      • Al says:

        What if an atheist, a Muslim, or a Bah’ai couple want to get married? What if an inter-faith couple want to get married?

        What if someone is a Christian but follows the teachings of Jesus to be loving and accepting of all people and accepts the New Covenant as superseding the laws of the Old Testament?

        Marriage existed long before Christianity and even Judaism and today irrespective of one’s religion we have marriage as a legal and cultural ceremony that exist in our community.

        We have created it in law and now that we have recognised in law that people have a human right to be free of discrimination on the basis of their religion or sexual orientation we must open the legal institution of marriage to adult couples of all sexual orientations and religions.

        • I agree says:

          What if??? That’s a big IF because you and I know that your examples will never happen.How many people(couples)that you know of that follow different religions,that have married???
          How many couples that you know, with different political beliefs,that have married??

          • Mike Hind says:

            Are you even remotely kidding?

            Are you actually saying that atheists, Muslims and Bah’ai people don’t get married?

            Seriously? You’ve lost it!

          • Girl on Fire says:

            My husband I are different religions. We had an interfaith wedding in Bermuda. So there goes your theory.

            Good people are good people, even if they don’t always agree on the definition of God or the role of government. We all want something better for our society, even if we disagree on the best ways to make it happen.

      • God says:

        I really don’t mind.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No. It’s not. It really isn’t.

        This is easily proven incorrect and has been repeatedly.

        Please try using REAL things as examples for your opposition and not things you wish were true.

      • Heavens says:

        sorry Jim Bob… but if you want to live in a society ruled by a particular religion, move to Iran.

      • Bdaboy says:

        Jim bob. Marriage, traditionally, is simply a transfer of property ownership. The daughter is given to the husband. Is this what you would like to see, or are you just defining marriage the way you want it to be?

        • Dan says:

          I’m pretty sure women don’t like to be thought of as property anymore.

    • Common Sense says:

      Thank you Monica Jones for putting this whole issue into such clear terms. There were Canadians who argued against amending their legislation who pronounced it would be the end of marriage as we know it. What utter nonsense that was. Ms jones has summarized the issue beautifully.

  10. San George says:

    Let them get married – that will stop the sex for sure.

    • jt says:

      Amen.

    • Bdaboy says:

      …..and ensuring that other people don’t have sex is a primary concern for all god fearing bermudians who have nothing better to do than think about gay sex.

  11. Sandgrownan says:

    Not entirely a surprise is it? You don’t really need a survey to predict the breakdown by age and race.

  12. food for thought says:

    might I suggest to those 58.5% who oppose same sex marriage that they dont marry someone of the same sex and leave those who do wish to do so the freedom do so do.

  13. BDA X says:

    Right is right,and wrong is no mans right!! There is no balance in a homosexual relastionship.Two negatives give you nothing,two positives give you nothing.But when you have positive to negative you get power don’t care how you look at it,it is wrong and no amount of acceptance can change that!!

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      lol so who is positive and who is negative then in a man and woman relationship? You’re so sexist. Sit down please.

    • Mike Hind says:

      This is gibberish.

  14. Bermudian says:

    the whole world isnt homosexual being homosexual wont stop the human race. yall just need to chill with all this. if it bothers you then you dont have to watch it turn your head. the issue at hand is more then who you choose to sleep with. we need to worry about violence and other things thats really affecting us. LOVE IS LOVE!

    • I agree says:

      Until two men or two women can produce life by sleeping with the same sex I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING ANYTHING HOMOSEXUAL!For all of you who think that we were not put on this earth to produce life are wrong.

      • ya right says:

        Most people don’t support it. It’s just something that doesn’t sit right in the minds of most people. It’s awkward and just doesn’t seem right.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Same was said about mixed-race marriage.

      • Mike Hind says:

        So… should sterile people be taken off the earth?

        Should we dissolve marriages if someone gets a vasectomy?

        And “put on this earth” would indicate outside forces, i.e. religion.

        Why does ANYONE else have to follow the rules of yours?

      • Bdaboy says:

        is that why so many children are born out of wedlock in bermuda? is that why there are so many fatherless children in bermuda? because you think ‘god’ put you here to spawn as many children as you can?

  15. Starting point says:

    Thankfully our young Bermudians are realizing that there is a time to respect your elders but also a time to reject your elders.

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      If we didn’t, segregation and slavery would exist still. Move along old time backwards thinking!

  16. Mark Burrows says:

    I hope they legalise gay marriage. I don’t want to go overseas in order to marry my Guinee.

  17. Warwick Wickets says:

    Britney Spears, Kim Kardashian, these are the kind of vacuous people demeaning the value of marriage. If two people who love each other want to get married, then you should embrace their love. Don’t be on the wrong side of history like all those who were opposed to the civil rights movement! Right are rights, no matter who you are.

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      Agreed!

    • Allah says:

      Legit question… If Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian were drowning, but you only had enough time to save one… What balloon animal would you make?

  18. I heart 441 says:

    I oppose it as well, so add my percentage to the list. Its appalling that we live in a society where it seems almost unmoral to speak up against homosexuality.
    I put the blame on the US, as their media opposes/attacks anyone that speaks up against homosexuality.

    A man kissing another man is straight up disgusting. The words I really would like to express about it may get me kicked off this blog.

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      Why don’t we go back to stoning cheating people too? Oh well they only did that to women not the men. I’m guess you’re a man though right? Probably holding on for dear life to your “masculinity”

      • I heart 441 says:

        Because you are assuming im a man, should I assume you are gay?

        • campervan says:

          We now KNOW that you are a bigot.

          • I heart 441 says:

            If your statement of me makes you happy, kudos to you to.

            • campervan says:

              There is nothing happy about bigotry, its sad.

        • Get out the dark ages says:

          Assume what you wish. I’m not the one who looks like a raging bigot. And is rather be assumed to be a homo than a bigot. And if you’re a woman then you look even more daft having such a backwards mentality because go back a few decades and you wouldn’t dare speak up against a man, gay or straight or you’d have yourself a good slap. Shall we go back to that too? Get into the year 2014

          • I heart 441 says:

            I Accidentally hit the LIKE button to your reply when I meant to hit the reply button. But ummm,….If your statement of me makes you happy, kudos to you too.

            • campervan says:

              ^ classic passive aggressive behaviour.
              meanwhile you still spout bigoted views that have no place in a modern democratic civilisation.

            • Allah says:

              And now… I choose you! Scapegoat!

      • I agree says:

        And you want me to be in support of your freaky, immoral,ways. Im probably guessing your a woman wanting to be a man but are frustrated because you don’t have a functioning P—s and cant feel the pleasure of a man.Was more than likely rejected as a female. Probably holding on for dear life to your femininity(oh wait you never had that)masculinity(oh wait you can never have that)You must be miserable you poor thing you!

        • I heart 441 says:

          Are you referring to me?

          • Get out the dark ages says:

            Lmao wow “I agree” your a bitter little person aren’t you? more straight people should stop reproducing because the gene pool in Bermuda is getting too mixed up and mental retardation is occurring. Case and point with you.

            • I heart 441 says:

              Makes me wonder why you get so defensive. I bet you wouldn’t be so outspoken of your views out in the public. smh
              Your name calling defines your maturity.

              • Allah says:

                Your evasion defines your narcissism. Well that, or you wouldn’t be so outspoken of your views in public.

    • I agree says:

      I don’t agree! Its not the US its those Europeans! They have been openly freaks for decades!! Have you visited some of those countries were they have homosexuality splashed all over TV and in commercials?

      • I heart 441 says:

        Even I though I believe your comment has a valid point, I stated the US because Bermudians are more exposed to US media, unfortunately.

        • jt says:

          What exactly would the valid point be?

          • I heart 441 says:

            To what ” I agree” stated.

            • Get out the dark ages says:

              I agree and I heart are probably same person on two devices talking. I don’t want to believe two people could be so ignorant

              • I heart 441 says:

                Entertain me on what I said that was ignorant?

    • Mike Hind says:

      It IS immoral to poke your nose into someone else’s relationship.

      It’s none of your business.

      • Come Correct says:

        Not so amazingly, at least 11 people feel they have the right to other peoples business.

    • Bdaboy says:

      people like you who find same sex love disgusting are usually closeted homosexuals. its not disgust youre feeling……its actually your overwhelming desire to get it on with a same sex partner.
      you need to come out of the closet….youd be a lot happier :)

  19. Unbelievable says:

    This poll only reflects public opinion. It can’t reflect was is right and one day, same-sex marriage will come to Bermuda. It’s only a matter of time.

    It’s already been embraced in the United States like wild fire – not that that is the best barometer. It’s only a matter of time however.

  20. Girl on Fire says:

    I completely support marriage equality. Can’t wait for progress!

    Not that it matters, but I’m straight.

  21. Get out the dark ages says:

    1. Homosexuality is Natural and Occurs in Many Animal Species – 20% of All Bird and Mammal Sexual Interactions are Homosexual

    2. Don’t try the Bible standpoint because I am a Christian and I believe in Christ’s laws that love of God and each other is the way to be. Love is love and homosexuals were made that way. The Bible also gives allowance to rape virgins and pay their fathers money to marry them the fire making it right, stoning a woman who is raped if she doesn’t yell for help because it means she is a whore, killing someone who pees on the wall of your house. I mean really?! It allows men to have more than one wife and guess what else?! Justifies Slavery!

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      Also on that last note Black Bermudians should contemplate how slavery was justified and also denying slaves wanting to marry because slaves were viewed less than human. So keep on sticking to the past and spew more hate out into the world. Learn to live and let live. Homosexuals pay their dues to society too. They need not be treated less than human

    • I agree says:

      Haha try and justify your sickness by using animals species as an example.I have one for you,do you know that man and dolphins are the only creatures on earth that have sex for pleasure?? Go find something else to justify your freakish ways.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Incorrect. You REALLY need to do research before you start spewing facts that you heard somewhere.

      • Come Correct says:

        Did you know that a dolphins ejaculation can decapitate a human? Also a lie you can find on the internet since I’m positive you haven’t studied dolphin behavior or work at Dolphin Gate prison.

    • We the People (1st!!) says:

      I am all for having an open discussion on homosexuality, we need to define what type of country, morally, we want to be going forward.

      1. Homosexuality is Natural and Occurs in Many Animal Species – 20% of All Bird and Mammal Sexual Interactions are Homosexual

      Help me to understand point 1 comment. I believe animals are an irrelevant argument to prove that homosexuality is natural or not natural when comparing animals to human morality and standards. That is insulting.

      It implies that whatever occurs in the animal kingdom is justifiable as being natural or normal for us. If we take that premise, then wouldn’t this mean that it should be normal or natural to eat your young, natural to lie in wait to ambush and kill, natural to barf up food to give to your young? We cannot apply the it-is-done-in-the-animal-kingdom standard of morality, which the animal kingdom has none, to our very real social morality quandary.

      • Mike Hind says:

        The “It Occurs In The Animal Kingdom” argument is usually a response to “Homosexuality is unnatural” cry.

        THAT is why it is brought up, usually, to counteract the howls of the ignorant trying to justify hate.

        • We the People (1st!!) says:

          “That is why it is brought up…”

          How to you counteract a mute point when someone is using the “Homosexuality is unnatural cry” when using animals as an example, with another mute point that says homosexuality is natural because birds to do” Really, Mike!! This is not math, two negative mute points do not equal a positive counter point. What type of logic is that?

          I was responding to the comment above me that clearly used statistics to justify human homosexuality by using animals as an example.

          It is true that others use animals for the “unnatural”cry also. This is why my comment saying the animal argument is an irrelevant argument to prove that homosexuality is natural or not natural for us humans.

          The animal kingdom does not have a social moral obligation. Animals don’t care if other animals kill, rape, abuse their young, use drugs etc, steal food from one another, leave their babies by themselves, and the list goes on. They don’t care. In our society, We do!! There is a big difference between other animal species and us. In our society we do care about what kind of sexuality will be tolerated in our society.

          • Mike Hind says:

            I’m not convinced you understand what a MOOT point is.

            What I WAS doing is explaining to you why the “It happens in the Animal Kingdom” point is brought up, usually, thus making your conjecture and continuation of that argument moot.

            (BTW, a moot point is something that is ONLY worthy of discussion but has no relevance to the topic.)

            Having a “social moral obligation” is, as you described, “unnatural” in the Animal Kingdom, yet we do it.

            Look, my entire point was that bringing the “natural/unnatural” argument is, in fact, moot, as it has nothing to do with the topic.

            Claiming it’s unnatural is wrong, as shown by the evidence that other beings in nature do it.
            Claiming that bringing up that other animals do it is moot, ignoring the original point, is a specious argument.

            • We the People (1st!!) says:

              “Look, my entire point was that bringing the “natural/unnatural” argument is, in fact, moot, as it has nothing to do with the topic.”

              Ok I got it. Was you agreeing with my first post then, but explaining why it is mentioned? If so, I misunderstood your post. My aplogies. If you would have been more clear and said something like ” bringing the “natural/unnatural” argument is, in fact, moot when referring animals, as it has nothing to do with the topic.” maybe I would have got it. LOL.

              “What I WAS doing is explaining to you why the “It happens in the Animal Kingdom” point is brought up.” Your point is clear. I understand why it is brought up. I thought you were defending the post I was responding to.

              “Claiming it’s unnatural is wrong”. Your right, when using animals as the reference point. However, I do believe there is plausible case with unnatural argument without using animals. If you simply look at the makeup of a woman’s body and a male body for sexuality and how they compliment each other for sex, is it natural for men to be with women and women to be with men. Men with Men bodies and Women with Women bodies do not naturally compliment each other for sex. That is a fact. There is a plausible argument in that. I’m not saying it is right or wrong, but it is plausible and relevant to SAME-SEX Marriage.

              “Claiming that bringing up that other animals do it is moot.” You’re right again. And claiming that they don’t do is also a moot point. Both irrelevant to the homosexuality SAME-SEX debate.

              Regardless of what animals do, I don’t think we want to be using animals to define morality for humans.

              What animals do is irrelevant to what we can and cannot do. It is irrelevant to what is accepted and not accepted in our society. It is irrelevant to what is natural or not natural in our society. It has NO relevance to the topic of SAME-SEX Marriage. Do animals get married? No. So the entire animal argument for or against once again is a MOOT point. No relevance to SAME-SEX MARRIAGE!! Relevant to another discussion, but not this. Whether animals have sexual relations with every other animal in the entire animal kingdom is a MOOT point to the relevance of SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

              Yes, BTW I do understand the meaning of MOOT point. Thanks for correcting my spelling mistake. I hate auto correct on these apple devices sometimes.

              • Mike Hind says:

                We can skip the rest, as we’re pretty much on the same page, but I gotta hit on this…

                “However, I do believe there is plausible case with unnatural argument without using animals. If you simply look at the makeup of a woman’s body and a male body for sexuality and how they compliment each other for sex, is it natural for men to be with women and women to be with men. Men with Men bodies and Women with Women bodies do not naturally compliment each other for sex. That is a fact. There is a plausible argument in that. I’m not saying it is right or wrong, but it is plausible and relevant to SAME-SEX Marriage.”

                It’s not actually a fact. It’s an opinion based on an observation, tinged by bias.
                Men with men fit together just as well as men with women, as do women with women. Want to know the evidence? Easy: ‘Cuz people keep doin’ it.
                It’s not up to us to say what “naturally compliments [sic]” for anyone else.

                And, as such, your point is not a plausible one and has absolutely no relevance to marriage equality.

                Also, sex is not a prerequisite for marriage. Yes, it is a factor in ENDING a marriage – as in annulment – but if both parties are ok with it, as the rules stand now, two people can quite happily and legally get married, and STAY married, without ever even seeing each other naked.
                Whether their bodies “naturally compliment” each other or not…

                • We the People (1st!!) says:

                  You’re right. Sex is not a prerequisite for marriage. Neither is love.

                  I was speaking to the sexuality in homoSEXUALITY and not particularly marriage.

                  Do you truly believe that men to men sexual organ fit together and a woman to woman sexual organ fit together? ‘Cuz people keep doin’ it” it doesn’t make it right because people keep doing it. Come on!!

                  So define marriage.

                  Marriage since the foundation has been a fundamental human institution that has always socially been defined and accepted as a union between one man and one woman. At least in most of the western world.

                  The question is how do we define marriage. Currently, it is illegal to marry someone who is already married. It is illegal to marry multiple people called polygamy, age restriction to marriage in most places, and the list goes on on how laws define marriage and what is socially accepted.

                  What we need to know is how do we define marriage in order to accept all forms of marriage. It is unfair for one group to push an agenda onto society to accept and acknowledge a union between people of the same sex when society is not ready for it.

                  People have some reservations about same-sex marriage, they are called every name under the sun. Which is wrong. This is a real moral conflict for a lot of people. It seems like an agenda is being shoved down the throats of people who do not currently support same-sex marriage. The same people pulling the hate, bigot, and everything else card are the people spewing hate right back toward people who have general valid concerns about same-sex marriage.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    Just to run through…

                    “You’re right. Sex is not a prerequisite for marriage. Neither is love.”

                    So, on the subject of marriage equality, the argument about sex is out of the equation, yes?
                    We can cross off the “They have sex with each other and their sexual organs don’t go together, so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married” off the list?

                    “I was speaking to the sexuality in homoSEXUALITY and not particularly marriage.”

                    But that’s not the subject. We’re talking about marriage equality.
                    If you’re not talking about marriage, why bring it up?

                    “Do you truly believe that men to men sexual organ fit together and a woman to woman sexual organ fit together? ‘Cuz people keep doin’ it” it doesn’t make it right because people keep doing it. Come on!!”

                    Make it right? According to whom? It’s right for them!
                    If it’s not right for you, I have to ask… why do you get a say in what’s right or wrong when it comes to what ANYONE else on the planet do with each other, sexually, as long as it’s consenting?

                    “So define marriage.”

                    I’ll leave that to the courts

                    “Marriage since the foundation has been a fundamental human institution that has always socially been defined and accepted as a union between one man and one woman. At least in most of the western world.”

                    ERRRRNT. This is incorrect. Even the bible doesn’t define it as such! PLEASE do some research.

                    “The question is how do we define marriage. Currently, it is illegal to marry someone who is already married. It is illegal to marry multiple people called polygamy, age restriction to marriage in most places, and the list goes on on how laws define marriage and what is socially accepted.”

                    As has been discussed elsewhere, polygamy has no place in this conversation. It’s a completely different subject.

                    But yes. The question is “How do we define marriage?”
                    That is the crux of it. Folks like me would prefer it if our friends and loved ones could share in the rights and benefits that we enjoy and think it’s completely unfair that, because some people think that they have the right to deny someone else these rights and benefits, based on their own personal beliefs, they don’t get these same, equal rights.

                    “What we need to know is how do we define marriage in order to accept all forms of marriage. It is unfair for one group to push an agenda onto society to accept and acknowledge a union between people of the same sex when society is not ready for it.”

                    Who is forcing anything on anyone? How does someone else’s marriage affect you in ANY way?
                    What’s unfair is one group DENYING another group rights and benefits, based on who they love.

                    “People have some reservations about same-sex marriage, they are called every name under the sun. Which is wrong. This is a real moral conflict for a lot of people. It seems like an agenda is being shoved down the throats of people who do not currently support same-sex marriage. The same people pulling the hate, bigot, and everything else card are the people spewing hate right back toward people who have general valid concerns about same-sex marriage.”

                    People can have all the reservations they want. Their reservations are not the problem. They’re not the reason people say that they hate or are bigots. The fact that they are forcing their religious beliefs onto others by denying them rights and benefits.

                    Just asking and, since we are having a civil conversation, I hope you’ll answer…

                    What are the “general valid concerns about same-sex marriage” that you mentioned?

                    I haven’t heard ANY that don’t involve people having to obey the rules of someone else’s religion, or “Ew, it’s yucky!”

                    • We the People (1st!!) says:

                      I am going to try to make this as short as possible. I am not going to address all of your points because it would be a lengthy post.

                      I said, “You’re right. Sex is not a prerequisite for marriage. Neither is love.”

                      You said, “So, on the subject of marriage equality, the argument about sex is out of the equation, yes?”

                      No, it is not. Here is why. This article is about people opposing same sex marriage not marriage equality. One of the reasons why people oppose same-sex marriage is because of the sex between two people of the same gender. If it was simply about marriage equality only then it would hold less water.

                      I said “Marriage since the foundation has been a fundamental human institution that has always socially been defined and accepted as a union between one man and one woman. At least in most of the western world.”

                      You say. “ERRRRNT. This is incorrect. Even the bible doesn’t define it as such! PLEASE do some research.”

                      I didn’t say the Bible did define marriage as such. I said that is how we as a society, particularly in the west, going back to the foundation of marriage has traditionally defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Thus one of the reason why in some societies, including ours, polygamy is against the law.

                      Sine you mentioned the Bible, Here is how the Bible defines marriage.

                      Marriage is a covenant, a sacred bond between a man and a woman instituted by and publicly entered into before God and normally consummated by sexual intercourse. Marriage is the most intimate of all human relationships, uniting a man and a woman in a “one-flesh” union (Genesis 2:23 -25).

                      Marriage is not merely a human agreement between two consenting individuals (a “civil union”); it is a relationship before and under God.

                      I said, “The question is how do we define marriage. Currently, it is illegal to marry someone who is already married. It is illegal to marry multiple people called polygamy, age restriction to marriage in most places, and the list goes on and on about how laws define marriage and what is socially accepted.”

                      You reply, “ As has been discussed elsewhere, polygamy has no place in this conversation. It’s a completely different subject. ”

                      First I don’t know where everywhere is. If we are talking about marriage and you are talking about marriage equality, then how does polygamy have no place in the conversation? All polygamy is the practice of MARRIAGE of having multiple husbands or wives at the same time. How is that not relevant or has no place in the discussion of marriage or marriage equality? So what you’re saying is that homosexuality marriage equality has relevancy but not polygamy when both deal with the issue of marriage. How do you justify that? Polygamy would be a different issue if we were discussing if homosexuality is right or wrong. Also you picked polygamy out of the entire list, how about the others?

                      You say, “But yes. The question is “How do we define marriage?”
That is the crux of it. Folks like me would prefer it if our friends and loved ones could share in the rights and benefits that we enjoy and think it’s completely unfair that, because some people think that they have the right to deny someone else these rights and benefits, based on their own personal beliefs, they don’t get these same, equal rights.” That is fine, it is good you feel that way.

                      However, that is life Mike. Society as a whole has a moral obligation of what will be tolerated and accepted. There are some things in life that deny someone rights to what other groups have rights to. This is life. Why are those things right?

                      Also, every individual person is free to get married, however, no person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has ever had a legal right to marry simply any willing, consenting partner. Every person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is subject to legal restrictions as to whom they may marry. To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying an underage person. Some countries it is 18, some 16, and a few it is at the age 12, puberty. Who is right, who is wrong setting the age limits? People are legally prohibited of marrying a close blood relative. Who is right, who is wrong? Can’t marry a person who is already married, why not? Who is right, who is wrong? Can’t marry multiple people, why not? Who is right, who is wrong?And people can’t marry people of the same-sex. There is no discrimination here, and such a policy does not deny anyone the “equal protection of the law” since these restrictions apply equally to every individual. You may wish to get rid of a few of these legal restrictions upon one’s choice of marital partner. However, because minority of people desire to have same-sex marriage does not mean that they have a “right” to have it, more than the desires of majority who oppose it.

                      Also, please answer my question because you never answered it. You simply asked a question with a question.

                      Do you truly believe that men to men sexual organ fit together and a woman to woman sexual organ fit together?

                      You said, “Men with men fit together just as well as men with women, as do women with women. Want to know the evidence? Easy: ‘Cuz people keep doin’ it.” Do you believe that.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      I thank you for the civility in your posts and appreciate you trying to express your views in an honest, polite way, but I can tell from this post that neither of us is going to change the other’s mind and we’re going to end up talking in circles.

                      There are some things in your post that I find fundamentally wrong and/or irrelevant, but pointing them out is going to get us nowhere.

                      I will hit on the important one, right at the end.

                      “However, because minority of people desire to have same-sex marriage does not mean that they have a “right” to have it, more than the desires of majority who oppose it.”

                      This is absolutely incorrect. It is the responsibility and the duty of a democracy to protect the minority from the majority.

                      This was true for miscegenation and it’s true here.

                      And your question “Do you truly believe that men to men sexual organ fit together and a woman to woman sexual organ fit together?” is irrelevant, but I will answer as best I can (as it’s a leading question).
                      If you are referring SOLELY to the genitals, specifically, penis and vagina, then, of course not.
                      However, “sexual organ” is a broad concept.
                      The skin is a sexual organ. So is the tongue. So are the nipples. The breasts. The neck. The small of the back. The back of the knee. Toes. And a whole lot of other stuff. And some of that fits together pretty darn good!

                      So, I know what you’re asking and I’ve answered.

                      I hope that’s the end of this.

                    • We the People (1st!!) says:

                      Mike to reply to your last post, a males and females sexual organ is specific. It is; sex organ – any organ involved in sexual reproduction reproductive.

                      Therefore the tongue and other body parts you listed are ruled out because they are not involved in sexual reproduction. People may misuse these other body organs for pleasure but they are not by design to be used for sexual purposes.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      And here is the problem. The word “design”.

                      You believe we were designed, it seems (and correct me if I’m wrong).

                      I don’t.

                      I also don’t believe sex is solely for reproductive purposes, nor do I think the sexual organs are solely for that.
                      It seems that you do.

      • Get out the dark ages says:

        It makes the point quite valid that it’s not a matter of choice but of how the person or animal was made to be for the Bible bleeding hearts who believe we are created in Gods image. Can we stop and also think umm. God is called “HE” Jesus is a man and The Holy Spirit is what? Man? Woman? Transexual? I’m a Christian but guess what we have labeled them all male. Maybe they are gay huh

        • We the People (1st!!) says:

          You need to seek some help or be more coherent in your posts.

  22. Digital underground have a song called ;-”dowatchahlike”……..go on you tube….or utube..and give it a listen….hell listen to all their music!

  23. Rich says:

    In order to derive some silver lining from this, two points to note:

    (1) 10 years ago, I would have expected the number opposed to be considerably larger, so there’s at least movement in the right direction. If you recall, last year polls showed large support for banning discrimination on the basis of sexual discrimination. Softening of opposition to marriage equality tends to follow after more people start accepting that discrimination is wrong. At least this trend parallels similar developments in the rest of the industrialized world.

    (2) Support for marriage equality is greater among younger folks. As time goes on, it will be inevitable that a majority of voters will be in favour. Unfortunately, in the meantime, older Bermudians tend to be a much more active voting block, so their views will continue to draw a disproportionate amount of politicians’ attention.

  24. JH says:

    Let’s see if I got this right: This God chap decided to kill absolutely everyone on earth except one man called Noah and his family cos he reckoned they’d been a bit naughty. Sounds like a complete nut case to me. Definitely not someone we should be worshipping.

    He was clearly a mass murderer.

    And people are worried about folks who love each other sleeping in the same bed.

  25. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    Every human Being is created on the Path and design of Deen ul Fitr.Man strays from that original Creation or path then cries like a baby when his Creator spanks him or her back in line.Try pushing spaghetti in your ear or up in your nostril instead of in your mouth…you freak…Alternative life style..the only alternative to the life style in which we were created is Altered Behaviour.!Behaviour against the Original Nature in which every Human Being was created….duhhhhhh …..check yourself…..before you wreck yourself…!Get yourself back on Course…!

    • Mike Hind says:

      Care to answer: Why should anyone have to follow the rules of your religion?

      • I agree says:

        or yours that supports man penetrating another….. Care to answer?

        • Mike Hind says:

          I don’t have a religion.

          You didn’t answer my question, though.

        • jt says:

          You really just can’t get your head around this can you? You’re postition is that your beliefs should govern others. You have made that very clear.
          Others on here are saying to each his own – this includes you!
          It’s not a matter of supporting gays and how they choose to live, but rather their right to do so without penalty or denying them the same rights as you or I.
          I think religion is a bunch of bunk. Should that be cause to deny you the right to practice religion? No way.

        • Bdaboy says:

          you think homosexuality is a religion now?
          I think this discussion is a bit too mature for you. stay in school. education is key :)

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      I don’t like your religion. You sound Muslim. Therefore get out of Bermuda and you can’t be married here. Would you like being told that? I mean I highly doubt it.

    • Come Correct says:

      It’s a great sign your son thinks the opposite way.

  26. I agree says:

    Hypocrisy at its finest!!! All these (so called) straight people in here supporting homosexuality and ignoring gods word but run to the church every sunday worshipping him. I want you to quote from the bible were god says it is OK to be gay.I can quote were it says its not!!!!

    • Al says:

      Presumably you’re talking about the biblical Old Testament book Leviticus 20:13 which forbids male homosexuality.

      You’ll note that immediately preceding that verse it forbids cutting the hair of your temples, shaving your beard, getting tattoos, condones polygamy, and tells you to treat foreigners as if they were native-born.

      It also makes no mention of female homosexuality.

    • jt says:

      So you want to get into quoting things from the bible? You really want to go down that road?
      Many of those supporting gays do go to church – they just choose to interpret the bible and the teachings of their religion differently than you do.
      Others supporting gays on here have no time for religion.
      What you don’t seem to understand is that it is not homosexuality per say that is necessarily being supported, but the right for individuals to live their lives as they wish without being denied the freedoms that others have.
      We are all entitled to our opinions/beliefs, including you. None of us should impose them such that they impact the freedoms of others -including you.

      • Get out the dark ages says:

        I mean as I stated earlier I don’t really believe love is ever a sin. True love between any sex is never wrong. How can love be wrong? But ok…. For those that think it’s a sin. Adultery is a sin and so are many other things like theft and lying. Have you taken a look at yourselves or especially the politicians in Bermuda?! Lol let’s sent every “sinner” marriage

      • I agree says:

        you cant interpret gods word in any way to support your beliefs!It is what it is and you cant change that.

        • jt says:

          I don’t interpret God’s word at all. I don’t believe in God. However, there are in fact countless interpretations of God’s word and the Bible within the Christian faith.
          I am absolutely certain that you do not subscribe 100% to the word of God and what is written in the Bible. I guarantee it.
          There are also many more people in the world practicing religions other than Christianity. Perhaps you’ve bet on the wrong horse. What a downer that would be.

        • Get out the dark ages says:

          Then men can have more than wife, rape can be justified and I can enslave you if i wish. I’ll be by later to slap you in irons because you wanna be a fundamentalist

        • Come Correct says:

          Holy oxymoron Batman!

    • Mike Hind says:

      What about those of us that DON’T run to church every Sunday?

      Why should we have to follow the rules of your religion, as you see them?

    • Bdaboy says:

      there is no god. your point is null

      • Mike Hind says:

        Whether there is a god or not should have nothing to do with this subject.

        Stay focused on the real points. Don’t let them distract you into talking about other stuff or stooping to their level.

  27. A Dingo says:

    Being opposed to same-sex marriage is like being in a restaurant and being opposed to the guy at the table next to you ordering spaghetti and meatballs because, well, you don’t like spaghetti and meatballs. Stop worrying about what other people do that has no effect on you whatsoever……

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      Bermudian 101: island is too small and too boring so people spend their time worrying about and trying to tell others how to live life.

    • Mike says:

      But they might make his children like spaghetti and meatballs.

  28. Terry says:

    Yawn…………………..

  29. thief says:

    It doesn’t really matter what you think or believe! It is legal in the UK, Canada and USA on a federal level. There will be many more same sex marriages whether you like it or not.

    The 1st world leaders we have today fortunately see the importance of all people being equal in law including women and blacks.

    • I agree says:

      yeah but not here!!! I guarantee you that!!!

      • JH says:

        There will be same sex unions here in Bermuda ‘I agree’. It is just a matter of time. The people who violently disagree with this sort of thing are often those who are unsure of their own sexuality. Perhaps you feel as though you’ll be exposed.

      • Get out the dark ages says:

        You’re making me want to start to believe In abortion for people like you.

      • Get out the dark ages says:

        I bet your a flaming homosexual

      • Mike Hind says:

        No need to stoop, folks.

        Keep it civil.

      • Bdaboy says:

        bermuda is 3rd world….and oddly proud of it

      • campervan says:

        Obama would look down at you and shake his head at your pitiful bigoted opinions.

  30. Bermudian Living Abroad says:

    As a homosexual Bermudian it is a shame that I had to leave my own country due to the closed mind set of Bermudians. My partner… Actually Husband… and I lived there for 5 years together and couldnt enjoy a romantic dinner out without the stares and awkward comments. Bermuda needs to wake up. The LGBT community isnt going anywhere. Keep up with the times of the world. As the quote says “Live and Let Live”… We dont worry about heterosexual couples why worry about us?

    • Anon says:

      Bermudian Living Abroad…I am so sorry to hear that you have had to live with this type of ignorance as a) I don’t think homosexuality is a choice it just is and b) why is it anyone else’s business when it absolutely doesn’t affect them. My favourite this is when they bring God, Jesus and the Bible into it to defend their very bigoted anti Christian point of view.

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      I pray the homophobes all have raging homosexuals that become fabulous drag queens and big ol’ butch lesbians! Yay! Gay pride!

    • campervan says:

      ^ This is unacceptablele. A person has had to leave their country due to bigotry from the leader of the opposition on down.
      How sad.

  31. JH says:

    “I agree says:

    June 24, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    you cant interpret gods word in any way to support your beliefs!It is what it is and you cant change that”.

    This could not be further from the truth – the church does this absolutely all the time every single day. It is entirely 100% what religion is built upon. Interpreting an ancient text to make your point – whatever that point might be.

  32. Real Talk says:

    We as humans havent got through the race issues, so why do you homosexuals think that you will be treated fairly. The world has bigger issues like World Peace,People without food, water and shelter.Your choice to be gay is nothing to do with the next man.I have no issue with whatever you do but find that gays try to force thier beliefs on the rest of the world. Im not a christian but a god fearing man and those who think this is right are just crazy. I dont want my child to grow up seeing man and man or woman and woman in marriages because that an issue i have to explain not you. Enjoy your lives together but marriage is a no go. Go live in US or which ever countries choose to legalize it. And if anything WEED needs to be legalize in Bermuda.

    • Mike Hind says:

      No one is forcing anything on anyone… except for the “god fearing” forcing their religious beliefs on other people.

      The other problems you mention ARE important and ARE bigger issues.
      But that doesn’t mean that this issue should be ignored.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And, as has been mentioned numerous times:

      Sexuality isn’t a choice.

      You didn’t choose yours, they didn’t choose theirs.

    • jt says:

      No one is forcing you to try homsexuality or even to accept or like what is involved with homosexuality. You are, naturally, entitled to your own beliefs and practices. Don’t confuse the struggle for equality with forcing one’s beliefs upon another. They are not the same. Posts on this blog clearly demonstrate that.

      You seem to be suggesting that because there are other injustices and problems in the world certain groups should just accept being treated unfairly. That makes no sense.

      I do have a question for you. What if one of your children turns out to be gay?

    • Dan says:

      “Your choice to be gay”

      Did you choose not to be gay?

    • Get out the dark ages says:

      You’re crazy. Lol gays push their beliefs? No they force to be left alone by the idiots who constantly want to force them to change

  33. 420Truth says:

    Some of these comments are even more appalling than the survey results. Rights are rights, they need not be approved; you homophobes are treating the right to get married like it’s actually a privilege. Don’t agree with hay marriage? Then don’t get married to someone of your own gender, it’s THAT simple! What goes on in another person’s life has f***all to do with you! I’m completely heterosexual, and yeah I find 2 men together nasty, but it’s nothing to do with my *****, if they’re happy and wanna be together who the hell is anyone else to deny them?? That’s like following some stranger around in a grocery store, pulling items outta their cart n telling them “no, you can’t have this”. Stop the hate, end the discrimination.

    • Pastor Syl Hayward says:

      The site won’t let me ‘like’ your comment, 420Truth. I like your analogy re: the shopping cart, and agree entirely

  34. Melissa says:

    Gay / Lesbian couples getting married isn’t harmful to anyone. The idea that people are still so opposed to same sex marriages is ridiculous. A marriage is a union of two people. The Oxford English dictionary has officially changed its definition of marriage to include same sex couples. “The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship”. Note that it is a LEGALLY or FORMALLY recognized union – there is no mention of religion. Religion does not play a part in everything that everyone does. I was raised going to church and sunday school but I had a civil ceremony and there was no mention of God in my ceremony. The ceremony and resulting marriage is for my husband and I; no one else.

    The people of Bermuda need to become more open-minded; multiple jurisdictions are knocking down discrimination barriers and legalizing same sex marriages including England.

    http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/job-done-queen-signs-gay-marriage-law-england-and-wales170713

    Same sex couples getting married will not affect anyone else on the island. Same sex couples don’t just disappear because you won’t allow them to get married. Here are some things that allowing same sex marriages will change (1) equality for all individuals regardless of sexual orientation (2)the right to information on their loved ones. Think about it; you are in a committed same-sex relationship with someone you love, then an accident happens…will the hospital give you information on your partner if you aren’t married? Will your relationship even be recognized by the Drs. If you aren’t legally married then who makes the tough decisions, if required…you or their family. Will the family know the injured party’s wishes like you would.

    Every individual deserves the chance to be happy and be treated equally. A legal document binding two people affects no one but those two people.

  35. PLPSUPPORTER says:

    we have more urgent things such as tourism and our economy to worry about… not some madness about….

    • Mike Hind says:

      Just because there are other issues doesn’t mean this should be dismissed.

  36. JH says:

    I had someone call me last week for a ‘poll’. The very first thing he said after ‘good evening’ was that I was called at random. He then quoted my exact address (including my unit number at the condo I live at) and asked me if it was correct.

    So it is random and yet you have my exact address including the unit number????

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

    • Bdaboy says:

      im guessing you dont really know what the word ‘random’ means. lol

  37. BlueFamiliar says:

    I’d like to believe that this, like most polls, is off the mark, however experience suggests that this sort of bigotry is alive, well and openly embraced in Bermuda in a larger way than racism actually is.

    From my perspective, both are equally unacceptable.

    As to those who use religion as an excuse to treat people unfairly because of their sins, I offer this.

    If you look back through the history of civilisation you will find the same behaviour attributable to those attempting to stop others from being treated equally and fairly. Those against slavery. Those against women’s rights. Those against mixed marriages. Those against other religions.

    In every instance their rationale was the same. The bible says it’s wrong. And their proof has been different excepts drawn out of context.

    So I ask you now, to take a moment and reconsider not your stance, but whether you have reached it by way of your own religious standards of how to live your life. Have you the right to judge? Have you the right to deny anyone something which is fully embraced by your religion? Have you the right to punish those who have not embracced your beliefs?

  38. aceboy says:

    I wonder how many of those who are against same sex marriages are involved in extra marital affairs…another thing the bible is very much against. In fact it is a Commandment. Thou shalt not covert they neighbors wife. Which Commandment says no to gay marriage?

    The whole idea that gays are killing off the human race is absolutely absurd.

    • Anon says:

      Snap…you sure told them. Good one

    • 420Truth says:

      Exactly my thoughts, they protest gay marriage because the bible says it’s wrong… the bible also says eating shellfish is wrong, yet they aren’t outside lobster pot protesting are they? Bigots

  39. Terry says:

    Most are missing the point.
    It’s about privilages and rights et al of “Married” persons.

    Shalom.

  40. Benjammin says:

    Makes me sad to be Bermudian knowing that over 50% of us don’t support basic human rights. You all should be ashamed. Imagine not being allowed to express your love to the person you want to be with, just like everybody else. And if you do it for religious purposes then even more shame on you. I believe religion is supposed to teach peace and harmony. Not prejudice and discrimination. Seriously I am just so sad to be a part of this island filled with so much hate.

    • Samuel L. Jackson says:

      So you also agree that it is a basic human right to marry ones sister or father?

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope. That’s absolutely NOT a human right.

        There are very good reasons for the ban on incest.

        However, that is a completely different topic from this one.
        Incest is not part of this conversation.

      • 420Truth says:

        Well actually the bible promotes incest so that’s a bad example to use… I mean, if it was just Adam and Eve to start with then it’s obvious Seth impregnated his sister… Abraham’s brother Nahor married his own niece, Jacob married not one but 2 of his first cousins, not to mention how Lot impregnated his own daughters…

      • Benjammin says:

        Ignorant people make ignorant arguments.

  41. Navin Johnson says:

    Mr Riley opined that white people were more supportive of same sex marriages because they were less religious than black people…..saw that on the news tonight.

    • BlueFamiliar says:

      As in the CURB guy?

      Either way, that’s oddly offensive. Moreso if the man is a major player in CURB.

  42. campervan says:

    The hooded ones are out in power here in Bermuda, stoking their hatred of the gay community, demeaning all of our humanity.
    Its unacceptable
    Do not accept their frothing bigotry.

  43. shutthemdowm says:

    Can you just let them get married so they can just STFU?

    So tired of the gay agenda.

    • Mike Hind says:

      What’s “the gay agenda”?

      As far as I see it, they’re just looking to be treated how everything else is.

  44. Monk says:

    As a member of the LBGT community I am fully in support of gay marriage being legalized here. Hugs and kisses to other supporters.

  45. Mike Hind says:

    It’s amazing to me, as always, how the most hateful just run away when confronted.
    Cowards and bullies, all of them.

    It’s sad and it’s sickening.

  46. BermudaCollegeStudent says:

    Not everyone will agree – this is my stance on the matter: http://henrymakow.com/2014/06/illuminati-hate-foisting-gay.html

    If the majority of society does not want it – the majority of society DOES NOT WANT IT. Period.

    • Mike Hind says:

      The minority must always be protected from the majority.

      That’s why there is a continuing fight for equal rights. That’s the whole point. This was true for miscegenation and segregation and it’s true now.

  47. Mike Hind says:

    Just a q:

    does anyone have an argument against marriage equality that doesn’t involve someone else following the rules of your religion?

  48. strikes me as strange says:

    God is the balance for man like the sun balances our universe. A man without knowledge of God, can neither know God or himself.

    I notice there are few gay men/women with faith in God. But there are many who accept a gay lifestyle when they are far from God. Why is that?

    Comments made about Harry Potter, Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny are all put higher than God in the minds of some people. So understanding the thinking and mindset of these same people is getting clearer.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Not everyone believes in God, nor do they have to, nor should they have to.

      Folks can think this is bad. That’s their right.

      What they SHOULDN’T be allowed to do is demand that, because they think something is against their God, other people should be denied rights and privileges.

    • Pastor Syl Hayward says:

      Actually,strikes me as strange, there are many gays and lesbians who have faith in God. You might be surprised. In the States and other accepting countries, the churches are full of them, but the traditional church here in Bermuda has so wounded and damaged those they THINK are gay or lesbian, the injured have to leave in order to stay healthy and sane. Many become angry at God – which by inference automatically means they believe in God.
      It is my contention that just as the church misrepresented Onan’s sin and the reasons for Sodom’s destruction, they are also misrepresenting what the Bible said about homosexuality.

      • James Herald says:

        Pastor Syl: It is truly sad that the church continues to flex its muscles over this argument. The church after all has an apalling record of human rights, and its representatives pick and choose which bible passages they want to prove any point they wish.

        If indeed the bible is God’s word, can I take my unruly child to the edge of town and stone her to death? How many slaves am I forced to keep, and will I really go to hell if I eat shellfish?

        Inflicting an ancient work which is proven to be largely fiction, is hardly a way forward in modern society. It is the equivalent of following a Santa Claus book. After all, if you honestly think about it there is as much evidence of the existence of Santa Claus, as there is of God. In other words NONE. Have a nice day.

        • Mike Hind says:

          The existence of God is a moot point in this topic and really doesn’t come into it… and only serves to distract from the subject.

          • James Herald says:

            I couldn’t agree more Mike. But its the Bible thumpers you should be telling, not me.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Just saying… No need to get distracted

            • Mike Hind says:

              Also, it’s kind of hard to retain the moral high ground with regards to tolerance while being intolerant.

              The point isn’t whether someone believes something or not, folks can believe anything they want. They just can’t demand that anyone else believe it.

  49. strikes me as strange says:

    Then I choose not to go with the popular trend of believing men can be gay. If what you say is true then belief allows men to do horrific things because they like or enjoy it.

    After all, not everyone agrees with a gay way, nor do they have to, nor should they have to.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And no one is asking ANYONE to.

      HOWEVER, they ARE saying that your disagreement is a personal one and should NOT be allowed as a basis for discrimination against another person.

      You can believe anything you want, including the bizarre idea that believing that men can be gay (a certifiable fact. I’ve met some of them.) is a “popular trend”.
      No one is saying you can’t believe that.

      But you shouldn’t be allowed to force your belief onto other people and you shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate and deny rights because of your personal beliefs. Society shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate simply because you don’t believe in gay people.

Latest Tweets From ForeverBermuda.com