Group To Host Two Public Forums On Marriage

November 24, 2015

[Updated] Saying it is part of “their ongoing initiative to ensure that marriage in Bermuda remains defined and upheld as a special union between a man and a woman,” the Concerned Citizens of Bermuda group announced today that Dr. Ryan T. Anderson will present two free public forums on marriage.

The group said, “As part of their ongoing initiative to ensure that marriage in Bermuda remains defined and upheld as a special union between a man and a woman, Concerned Citizens of Bermuda announced today that Dr. Ryan T. Anderson will present two free public forums on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 7pm – 8:30pm and Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7pm – 8:30pm at Hamilton Princess Hotel.

Dr Anderson on CNN’s Piers Morgan show in 2013 discussing same sex marriage:

“He will address the topic ‘What is Marriage and Why Marriage Matters?’ He will present a public case for marriage between a man and a woman along with answering questions asked by the public in the topic,” the group said.

“Concerned Citizens recently presented the Bermuda Government with a petition for marriage to remain between a man and a woman, which has grown to over 7,100 signatures from a wide cross-section of Bermuda residents in support that marriage celebrates the necessary differences between a male and female to procreate, fosters moral integrity, strengthens the family unit and therefore our society.”

Spokesperson for Concerned Citizens, Dr. Melvyn Bassett said, “We are excited that Dr. Anderson will address this very important topic. As a renowned author and speaker, he advises governments on marriage law and also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, healthcare and education. Our hope is that he will provide a much needed clarity concerning the constitutional questions about marriage.”

Dr. Anderson received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. He earned his masters and doctoral degree in Political Philosophy from the University of Notre Dame.

He was cited by Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissenting opinion in the 2015 Supreme Court case involving state marriage laws, and has appeared on ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News Channel and CNN.

Update Nov 25, 11.15am: The Hamilton Princess has confirmed that they will not be accepting the booking for the forums on same sex marriage held by the “Concerned Citizens of Bermuda” group, saying that the hotel’s policy is “to celebrate diversity in all its forms.”

We have reached out to the “Concerned Citizens of Bermuda” group asking for clarification on where the forums will be held, as quite obviously it will not be at the Princess as initially stated, and will update as able.

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (221)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Shameless says:

    Just what BDA needs! More hate speech.

    • meh. says:

      Very surprising that the hamilton princess would host this….

      • Why wouldn’t they as this brother, Christian group, have every right to express their views on marriage. That said what is most important is that the politicians have already spoken without saying a thing. 7000 signatures in Bermuda has caused them to think only about political survival because that’s what they do.

        • hilarious says:

          Larry- at least 1500 of those signatures I witnessed personally being faked. I know of at least 1000 more. please search this petition for a myriad of made up figures. turns out “GayLord Bumbanger” lives in Bermuda, and not just once, but a couple of dozen times signed this.

        • meh. says:

          Looks like they agree with us not you, http://bernews.com/2015/11/hamilton-princess-forums/

        • Ash says:

          They may have a right to express their views, but they don’t have a right to host it at the Princess. Wait, in Bermuda law do we actually have a right to free speech though? or are we just saying this argument because that’s the argument America makes and we can’t think for ourselves? Also majority of those signatures aren’t real and even if they were that’s what 10% of Bermuda’s pop. give or take.

    • BobtheBuilder says:

      Not hat speech. Open forum and discussion on the history of marriage what it was initially designed for and how is it beneficial…

      The Truth is hate to those that hate the Truth.

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        Truth… Opinion, not exactly defining terms in a theoretical discussion… or a theological one such as this. He is a conservative Christian speaker, course he speaks out against change and of course those opposed to the notion of same sex marriage would bring him here to present his opinions. He likes to open his point of view as that same sex marriage infringes on freedom of religion… but in democracy freedom of religion is held in check by the freedom from religious persecution. So to argue against same sex marriage with a religious point of view also means you don’t actually believe in democracy.

      • sippintea says:

        RIGHT ON COULDNT HAVE SAID IT BETTER

    • Fairy Land says:

      No what Bermuda needs is for your OBA government to make a stand in the house and pass the law. But their 2 afraid to loss votes next election. Tell me I’m wrong :)

      • jt says:

        Bean promoted homeopathy in the throne speech. Good to know that he has come around.

        • Kim says:

          Of course he would. He is looking for the votes now. He will sway any way to get them.

      • Johnny says:

        Why would they pass a law that the majority of Bermudians are against?

        • jt says:

          Why would they be against it? Start there. Slippery slope.

        • JBweld says:

          Because it’s a fundamental human right? Duh

          • Jamie Franscisco says:

            if it’s a fundamental human right why are you begging a group of men for that right? fundamental rights (any of them) are our own, no one need tell us what is appropriate.

            • jt says:

              The list of fundamental human rights that had to be obtained, as opposed to just ‘being’ is very long. Don’t expect me to list them for you if you can’t come up with any all by your little self.

              • mj says:

                jt— rights are what we give ourselves naturally, the right to breathe, live, how to live are choices, even if marriage wasn’t legal it is still natural to have opposite attraction which is scientific law, you begging for unnatural rights which if you were honest and sensible you would admit, even if something has been around for centuries doesn’t make it right,. can’t put a plug in a plug even if it is legal, it just doesn’t fit.

            • Ash says:

              I hope you realise how much of an idiot you just sounded like. Must I refresh your memory of slavery? Or genocide? Or FGM? or the Kony? or the legal killing of gay people in some countries? rape of small children (which was not only legal but encouraged)? the legal killing of widows? the legal torture of innocent people? Honestly the list goes on and on and on. Or were you never educated on history? or maybe you never paid attention in class?

        • @Johnny its no different that they passed the law on Apartheid and majority of Africans were against it, they cant help it, its in their nature.

          • Mike Hind says:

            A) it’s actually very, very different.
            B) who is “they”?

          • jt says:

            Apples/oranges.
            You like fruit OJ? Just sayin’.

          • Ash says:

            Except the majority are not against it, in fact they’re for it…tiny little fact there, but you know only “smart/righteous/good” people miss tiny little unimportant facts like that.

        • Ash says:

          Majority of Bermudians are in favor of same-sex marriage, the minority of Bermudians are against, a recent survey has proven this…

          • mj says:

            what survey!?!unless you got 40thousand people , you are incorrect.

      • Solution says:

        they’re* lean to spell before you go preaching about rights

    • HW says:

      Nothing he has said even comes close to being hate speech. This is a huge problem I’m seeing- for whatever reason, many of those who support redefining marriage are completely unwilling to listen to any other viewpoint. So much so that to even dare disagree or present a different perspective is immediately labeled hate speech. That’s a very immature and illogical way to try to shut down all opposition.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Show a valid opposing viewpoint that hasn’t been easily debunked multiple times and folks will listen.
        Show a valid opposing viewpoint that isn’t based on forcing people to follow the rules of someone else’s religion and folks will listen.
        Show a valid opposing viewpoint that isn’t based on lies and misinformation and people will listen.

      • hilarious says:

        I witnessed the hate speech myself, in Berkley. A certain minister sat there and cursed her fellow Bermudians, she mocked them and booed their struggle stories, she callously told them to go away and leave the island beause homosexuality is wrong, according to her. I was overwhelmed, I have honestly never ever seen such hate and disrespect from another human before. I couldnt believe when i found out she is a pastor!!! In the bible, it says women shouldnt preach the word of the lord. Why does she think its ok to do this?

      • Ash says:

        I’m for same-sex marriage, I have listened to every little argument their small minds could muster up (not just Bermudians heard a bunch of arguments people have made in other countries). There is 0 validity in the argument they present. At this point they’re reiterating all of their arguments and trying to present them as novel.

  2. NCM says:

    Great, more bigotry and homophobia. Didn’t we learn our lesson from the genie? Don’t these people understand that gay people are born that way? Why would anyone choose to be gay in such an intolerant world? Let’s hope there is a full contingent of rainbow warriors making their voices heard at this gathering.

    • Come Correct says:

      Gay marriage really doesn’t bother me, but nobody is born Gay. For you to stand by that claim either means it is hereditary or a genetic mutation. Each and every person on this planet is shaped into who they are by their own personal experiences and how they deal with them. Repeated rejection from the opposite sex is just one example of a possible contributing factor. Either way, they should be discriminated against for none of the above. We are all human and the hate I’ve seen recently all over the world from people with different views is sickening and almost makes you lose hope in all of humanity. Thankfully there’s a handful of people that restore that faith. Unfortunately it’s only a handful.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Any evidence of these claims?

        I appreciate the message of inclusion, but a claim like “Repeated rejection from the opposite sex is just one example of a possible contributing factor” needs to be backed up.

        • Come Correct says:

          Sorry but I honestly care not to explain it nor is it my place. I know you like evidence but this isn’t about me. If you are a human being you know that every experience you have, minor to major and your reaction to such, sculpts the very person you are today. I’m not talking about a simple:

          Boy: ay girl wha bus you catch?

          Girl: na…

          I’ve witnessed some truly nasty people. People that shatter a person’s personality to pieces without a given thought. I’ve also witness devout Christians piss on those pieces. One of the many reasons I’ll stand in hell before I sit in a pew again.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Ok. So we can dismiss your claim. Got it.

            • Come Correct says:

              You’ll dismiss my claim for not putting another person’s business out in the open? Nice Mike. The respect I had for the position you take is basically gone. The respect I have for those individuals still stands.

              • Mike Hind says:

                No, we can dismiss your claim as it was made with no evidence and a refusal to provide any.
                Please don’t put words in my mouth.

                • Come Correct says:

                  Mike, I wouldn’t put anything near your mouth and the fact you have some “evidence” and believe that homosexuality is somehow writen into the human genome goes against everything science has come to know about it, but I guess it makes you feel comfortable.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    First off, raise the tone. Please. No need for this belligerent nonsense.
                    Secondly, people being born gay is a lot more likely and has a lot more evidence than your “repeated rejection from the opposite sex makes people gay” theory!

                    Wanna know what that evidence is?

                    Gay people.

                    Just ask them. Their stories have WAY more credence than something you made up.

                    • Come Correct says:

                      Take your own advice. Very few people can look within themselves and be objective. For such a taboo subject and the criticism constantly fired at them (which is why I’m here at their defense when it has nothing to do with me, because I posess something called empathy) who would ever want to admit that? That is your evidence? Then come talk to my people for mine then. That’s funny. So because I respect others rights to privacy, and AGAIN it is not my right to put it out there (to now make Mr. Hind happy) my view is baseless yet even after politely asking you I see nothing that peaks my interest into getting into a higher debate. We have differing sources and different opinions, we should leave it there for their sake. Enjoy having the last comment on everything as always.

                    • Come Correct says:

                      Lol tells me to raise the tone and I just realized bernews cut part of my comment. It was little over the top. Apologies to both sides, sometime Mr. Hyde shows his face.

          • JohnnyBread says:

            How many guys did you try to pick up in your formative years? Did rejection from one too many turn you straight? Was your first kiss to a boy or girl? I bet you’ve always liked girls and never given the thought of dating a guy any thought at all… But you claim you chose to be straight when in fact it chose you…

            • Come Correct says:

              Wow I skied this one. Right over everyone’s head. I’m out, enjoy the same pointless arguments that go nowhere every time.

              • serengeti says:

                You’re the one that says rejection by the opposite sex turns you gay. So you think being rejected by girls would make a man attracted to other men?
                Ridiculous.

                • Come Correct says:

                  Holy crap I used one example, again, as a “POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR” (caps in case you all missed it the first 2 times). This is a comment section not a book writing session. I don’t have the time, patience, nor care to explain every different factor involved. That would be going into body chemistry and behavioral psychology among other things. Think of it like a dog bite, some people get bitten by dogs and have a life long fear, I have been bitten up by a dog but I don’t fear them because I understand the circumstances surrounding the event. Perception is reality to every individual human being and how you individually perceive something is your reality. I’m not saying someone gets rejected then thinks to themselves “hey why don’t I just be gay”. It could be completely subconscious. It could also be an entirely different situation all together. One event in life has the potential to change your entire outlook. There so much more to this but I’m not Dr. Phil and I don’t get paid for it nor does it really affact me in any real way. I apologised for initially stating it like it was fact when it’s really just my opinion. Whether people agree or not doesn’t bother me and I’m also willing to be proven wrong. So when you have science based evidence that homosexuality is caused by DNA let me know, until then you’re saying it is either hereditary or a genetic mutation, which is pretty obsurd. I would never go as far as saying it’s a psychological disorder because that infers there’s a problem. The only problem here is intolerance.

          • Moojun says:

            If you honestly don’t feel it is your place to explain your opinions, then keep them to yourself. Don’t throw statements like “Each and every person on this planet is shaped into who they are by their own personal experiences and how they deal with them” into the public realm without backing it up somehow.

            Otherwise, how do you explain humans that are born with both male and female genitalia? When they ‘deal with their own personal experiences’ which bucket of attraction criteria do you group them into in your simplistic view of the World? How would they be expected (by you) to answer your childish ‘bus’ scenario question?

            • Come Correct says:

              Um buddy… tell the police to stop announcing pedophiles in court then. If I don’t want to put someone else’s personal experiences out in the public without their consent then I’m not going to do it. That is not my place. As far life experiences shaping who you are, that is fact. Ask any psychologist or behavioral analyst. Sorry I’m going to the extreme here but if I was to brutally mutilate someone’s parents while making them watch, I highly doubt there would be much if anything left of the person they once were. That one event would reshape their entire life and the resulting possibilities are almost endless.

        • Come Correct says:

          I should also say I was wrong stating it as fact. Nobody really knows. It’s my opinion based on what I’ve seen with my own 2 eyes which I trust but also debatable.

      • Walk in their shoes says:

        Wow, that’s a new one. Repeated rejection from the opposite gender can make somebody just choose to pursue someone from the same gender. Can that work the other way around?

        • Come Correct says:

          Are you slow? Words have meaning. “Possible contributing factor” is what I said. I never said, hey let’s go full waffle and that makes people want gay marriage. Also, yes I have known females who put their all into something only to be messed over, confide in another female dealing with similar issues and developed a relationship through understanding. Most humans just want unconditional love and if you won’t love me, someone else will. Who the f*** are to dictate where they find that. Then you have those who just want a place to end in. Should I pull up a chair?

          • JBweld says:

            You sound a lot like Galt,John lolz

            • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

              I have to disagree, John Galt likes to bring up gay sex and how nasty it is like its always on his mind…

            • Come Correct says:

              Because I don’t believe people are born Gay but still should have the same rights as everyone else, most of all to be happy? Honestly no idea who that is, don’t care, he sounds like a fool

          • bdaboy says:

            “I’m out, enjoy the same pointless arguments that go nowhere every time.”

            i thought you were out

            • Come Correct says:

              Then I came back to at least TRY to clarify my opinion that people mistook as gospel. Nice addition to the discussion buddy.

      • Sandgrownan says:

        Well that’s b@lls

      • NCM says:

        I’m sorry Come Correct, but you are incorrect. People are born Gay. And Transgender. And Bi-sexual. Just like people are born straight. Or black, or white. But we live in a world with intolerant factions that spread their ignorance and hate as gospel. Do a little research. The truth shall set you free.

        • Johnny says:

          And are some people are born child molesters, rapists and murderers too? Are we to let them do as they please as well.

          • jt says:

            You’re a very confused individual.
            Those actions have victims.

        • Come Correct says:

          Saying being born Gay and transgendered are one in the same is ridiculous. You also didn’t show any evidence so I’m waiting for Mr. Hind to dismiss you…unless his opinion is the same as yours.

          • Mike Hind says:

            The difference is: I’ve seen the evidence of that claim.
            I haven’t seen the evidence of yours, which is why I asked.

            That’s how this whole “Discussion” thing works. Didn’t you get the memo?

            • Come Correct says:

              Mike, drawing a correlation between a physical attribute and something psychological is ridiculous in my opinion. Honestly I’d like to see the evidence you saw, I’d possibly find it interesting and it may even change the way I look at it. The human body and mind fascinate me, that’s what I study, that’s where my opinions come from. The a** clown who said to keep my comments to myself if I won’t share certain things clearly thinks the human race got to where it is by silence. Discussion is key. Silly name calling and dismissal does nothing to move us forward.

      • huh? says:

        I was born left handed, my life experience didn’t “make me that way”. There was a time when people weren’t allowed to be left handed, because left handed people were ‘different’ and in the minority. Right handedness was ‘normal’ and left handedness was ‘evil’ (as instructed by the bible). Just saying…

        • Come Correct says:

          Being left handed is a physical attribute like being transgendered. Being gay could be a number of things from body chemistry to psychological all depending on the individual. I was born dominantly right handed but I use both hands depending on the situation. Physical, nothing more. If you bring up the bible to me again I’ll have to consult Professor Dumbledor as to what we do with you.

        • stanley ward says:

          I like how people say something is from the bible that is not found in any text. There is nothing regarding left handedness as being evil Biblically. There is research however, indicating that all scribes were left handed. Most likely due to the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic are written from right to left (no smudges).

      • Cow Polly says:

        So I was shaped into being left handed? Even though I have two right handed parents and my siblings are all right handed? It was by my own personal experiences and how I dealt with them and that I was rejected by right handed people has a child? Really? Really?

      • Dockyard Lackey says:

        So nobody is born gay. What about those born blind, with Down Syndrome, missing limbs etc. People do not become Gay, it’s in their genes from birth, and the sooner people accept that fact the better.

      • bdaboy says:

        “Repeated rejection from the opposite sex is just one example of a possible contributing factor.”

        I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but, you’re a moron.

        • Come Correct says:

          Oh nice. I’ll wait for Mr. Hind to dismiss you for providing absolutely no scientific evidence and you’ve literally done nothing but made a personal attack on someone you don’t know personally. Clever boy you.

          • Mike Hind says:

            It’s amazing how hard you are trying to denounce the idea of providing evidence.
            How is backing up your claim a bad thing?

      • A Choice? says:

        Honestly I used to believe no one was born gay either. Because in my expiernce I COULD choice which gender I wanted and I COULD just repress any feelings I had for the other. You could very easily be bi and so you have an illusion that sexuality is a choice because it does feel like a choice, at least to you and at least to me.

        I would like to know though, why in your opinion, would people choice to be gay though?

    • HW says:

      By your logic, I could say the same about paedophiles. Clearly the act of paedophiles is illegal but could one not also argue someday that they’re also born that way? Why would anybody choose a lifestyle such as paedophiles when they know how they’ll be shunned by society, etc?

      • Mike Hind says:

        And there it is.

        Here’s a word: CONSENT.

        Paedophilia has no place in this conversation as children cannot give consent.

        What’s next? Bestiality? No consent there.

        Come on. ALL of this has been debunked.
        You’re spreading misinformation.

        • Johnny says:

          It’s funny how you can use the law to support one of your beleifs, and then totally disregard the law when your other beliefs are affected by the same law.

          • bobby13 says:

            This is about gay marriage. What does incest have to do with anything? F*** all so why bring it up and try to obfuscate things?

          • Mike Hind says:

            It’s not about beliefs. Keep up.

            Marriage Equality doesn’t have victims.

      • Come Correct says:

        Uh yes, pedophilia is psychological. A psychological DISORDER in fact. As many have and will point out there is a victim in that instance.

      • Ash says:

        Pedophiles are born that way….and no one should go to prison because prison doesn’t help, it only makes things worse. They can’t help it, they need help to stop their urges, because yes they are urges. And sometimes you can’t control your urges, you just do it, without thinking, without being able to stop yourself.

        As Mike said though, to adults can consent, a child cannot. And that’s why pedophiles should be helped rather than allowed to continue their behavior.

      • Ash says:

        Also you argument only makes sense if all gay sex were rape. It’s not. And rape of anyone is illegal.

  3. Noncents says:

    This is shameful.

  4. SANDGROWNAN says:

    Awesome, more ignorance, hatred and bigotry. What a prick.

    • We the People (1st!!) says:

      Define bigotry!

      • Come Correct says:

        Intolerance to those who hold a different opinion than oneself. Here’s a seat, take it.

    • HW says:

      LOL irony!!!! The hatred and bigotry on the blogs is far and away coming from those who support the redefining of marriage. Such hypocrisy

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope. Not true at all.

        No one on that side is supporting the denial of equal rights to members of our community.

        • HW says:

          Equal rights are not being denied. Gay people simply do not want to participate in a marriage which is defined as the joining of 1 man and 1 woman. Instead they’re trying to redefine marriage to accommodate their lifestyle.

          If we want to make this about equal rights, where is the ‘equal rights’ for a group of people who may want to all be married to each other and form a ‘marriage’?

          • bobby13 says:

            Equal rights are most certainly being denied. But frankly it matters not what you think as this will pass in Bermuda one day and your incessant complaining will do nothing to stop it. And your life will not change one iota because of it

          • Mike Hind says:

            And now the polygamy argument.
            This has all been discussed and debunked.

            If you want people to respect your position, you HAVE to have a valid position.

            Yours simply isn’t. It’s based on lies and misinformation.

          • bdaboy says:

            ” marriage which is defined as the joining of 1 man and 1 woman. ”

            Where is this defined? the bible doesn’t count. The bible is a fairy tale for those who can’t think for themselves.
            traditional marriage is an exchange of property, that’s all.

  5. SANDGROWNAN says:

    Ah, go look this guy up. A member of The Heritage Foundation, a right wing fundie nutjob organisation. He writes about religious liberty too apparently.

    The only religious liberty he’s interested in is his own, and his goal is to make you believe it too.

    So here’s the deal Ryan. You’re free to believe what you want, but no-one is making you gay marry, so don’t force your beliefs on anyone else.

  6. Mike Hind says:

    He believes that marriage is about procreation.
    That’s what he opens with.

    He is wrong. Therefore, he shouldn’t be listened to, as he is spreading misinformation.

    • MPP says:

      I understand the that marriage isn’t only about children. And that marriage can exist happily without children and without any desire ever to have children naturally or otherwise. And that children can be, and often are, born and loved outside of a marriage.

      But saying that marriage has NOTHING to do with children is plain bizarre. I’m sure nearly no one believes that.

      Joe Public knows that that married people get asked “are you guys having children soon?” for a reason, even if it can be an inappropriate question. He knows that kids suffer the most from broken marriages, too.

      Common sense is against you on that point.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Procreation is absolutely not a stipulation for marriage, therefore bringing this up as a subject is false.

        I didn’t say “that marriage has NOTHING to do with children”. You made that up. You acting like I did is what’s bizarre.

        Marriage CAN be about children, but it is absolutely not a stipulation. Therefore, as I mentioned, his position is incorrect.

        • MPP says:

          It’s a stipulation for public policy. It’s a stipulation about the societal rules around marriage that govern the CATEGORY of marriage for all of us.

          It’s not a stipulation for any individual marriage but, of course, we aren’t talking about that.

          • Mike Hind says:

            No. It is not. You are incorrect.

            “Procreation is, in no way at all, a stipulation for marriage, not even regarding “the societal rules around marriage that govern the CATEGORY of marriage for all of us”. This is an untrue statement.

            If it were, infertile people would be barred from marriage. Post-menopausal women would be barred from marriage. Sterile men would be.

            You are wrong.

            • MPP says:

              I find it hard to believe you aren’t following this, and throwing up the infertile/post-menopausal/sterile misdirection.

              I’ve clearly stated that marriage doesn’t have to and often beautifully doesn’t include kids. But marriage POLICY has to acknowledge all purposes of marriage, which include, even if only for those who choose to and can, the children we want our families to raise on our societal behalf.

              But this is plain. No one has ever stated or presented an argument that implied that fertility was required for any/every individual marriage.

              But you’re free to misdirect as you see fit.

              • Mike Hind says:

                “But marriage POLICY has to acknowledge all purposes of marriage, which include, even if only for those who choose to and can, the children we want our families to raise on our societal behalf.”

                Exactly. Therefore, the ability to carry out procreation is NOT a stipulation for marriage, therefore it is not a valid argument against Marriage Equality.

                “No one has ever stated or presented an argument that implied that fertility was required for any/every individual marriage.”

                No one has ever said that they did. You made that up.

                What I AM saying, and you seem to be missing, is that marriage POLICY does NOT include the ability to procreate, therefore it is not a valid argument against marriage equality. Marriage POLICY does not state, anywhere, including here, where you say it has to acknowledge all purposes for marriage, that the inability to procreate is a reason people aren’t allowed to get married. This simply isn’t something that is real.

      • JohnnyBread says:

        Um no

      • Ash says:

        Marriage doesn’t have anything to do with children. It is illegal for children to get married. Also children are born out of wed lock. You merely found something that happens within some marriages. Is marriage about sex? Not to everyone. What about travelling? a lot of people travel that are married, is travelling therefore part of marriage? What about house ownership? What about divorce a lot of married people seem to do that and I mean it’s only married people that do get divorced. I figured out, marriage is about divorce! It makes perfect sense!

    • HW says:

      You clearly have not listened to what he’s said. Or not listened very carefully. Please come on on December 1st and 2nd if you’re truly interested in a discussion on the issue.

      • Mike Hind says:

        What part did I miss? The part where he said “I believe that marriage is for man and woman to come together as husband and wife to be mother and father…”?

        I absolutely DID listen to what he said and, as I pointed out, he is wrong.

        Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage. It simply is not.

        • Longtail says:

          Thank you Mike. I have no time for HW and others of his/her mindset that would trash my marriage because my wife was too old to conceive when we married. Shame on the bigots who would try to use this argument to try to impose their intolerant beliefs on others.

  7. tilti says:

    I hope that Concerned Citizens makes their petition public soon. I keep hearing that it’s got over 7,000 signatures and I’m curious if they’re including my two from ‘Suq Madiq’ and ‘Munchma Quchi’. Obviously curious to see the other (actual) intolerant people on the island so as to best avoid them.

    • HW says:

      Interesting. So you think it’s OK to try to sabotage a petition with childish vulgarity and offensive hate speech like you’ve just mentioned, but then you’re concerned about avoiding ‘intolerant’ people? Wow. Your post should show up first when I do a google search of the word ‘hypocrisy’.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No, the offensive hate speech is from the people who are promoting the denial of equal rights to a group of our fellow citizens.

        • theothersidebda says:

          Regardless of where one stands on this debate, it is a far cry to call the denial of equal rights “hate speech”. If you want to call it discrimination then fine, but “hate speech” is a stretch and minimizes true “hate speech” when you lump this in that category. You may think that it is “hate speech” when someone says marriage is “supposed to be between a man and a woman” but that is their Biblical viewpoint. Just because you disagree with it, you label it “hate speech”? Isn’t supporters calling these people “homophobes” equally “hate speech” by applying your own logic? Can one not hold a view based on religious beliefs without being labeled something, regardless if you think that view is wrong? How does what Concerned Citizen is saying considered “hate speech”? When someone believes that interracial marriage is “wrong” (which still many believe on both side of the races as I hear it time and time again), does that constitute “hate speech” or an ignorant opinion? Does that automatically make them racist? It may, but that depends on why they hold that view. If they hold that view based on their belief on a single verse in the Bible, then that makes them ignorant not racist. Would I be angry with them, sure; would I label them as being misguided, sure; would I call them a racist, no because then I would be in the wrong for leveling that accusation.

          • Mike Hind says:

            It’s not about the viewpoint. It’s about the denial of rights. There simply is not equivalence between denying people rights and calling them names.

      • tilti says:

        I don’t think it’s sabotage. CC is saying that x number of people believe this, but there is literally no check that the person signing it is 1) real, 2) based in Bermuda, 3) not the same person signing multiple times. In thirty seconds I managed to not be two of those things.

        On a serious note, why shouldn’t we know who the people are who are signing this?

        I’d like to think that if you Googled ‘hypocrisy’ I’d at least come below results for Josh Duggar and the Catholic Church.

  8. Mike Hind says:

    Wow. This guy knows nothing. He truly is willing to rationalize his hate no matter what.
    Disgusting.

  9. Zevon says:

    Another right wing religious fanatic. He should fit in great with the PLP church crowd.

  10. Cow Polly says:

    Instead of flying this religious zealot in to preach hate to a bunch of people who already have hate in their heart, who don’t Concerned Citizens be concerned about their citizens and use the money to feed the homeless, the poor, the destitute? Isn’t that what Jesus preached?

    • HW says:

      How do you know they are not doing this already? Besides are we only allowed to care about one issue at a time? Your logic is flawed.

      This issue has huge implications for our society- people on both sides of the issue have acknowledged that. Therefore, it’s pretty unfair and frankly quite ridiculous to try and shut down any opposition to the redefining of marriage by saying “shouldn’t they be busy feeding the hungry etc etc.?”

      • Mike Hind says:

        What implications will this have on our society, other than families being able to live together and share in the same rights and privileges as the rest of us?

        • MPP says:

          Because kids need mommies and daddies, both for conception and parenting. Same-sex marriage tells a lie about what kids need when they arrive on planet earth, and telling that lie in our laws will cost us.

          Marriage isn’t ALL about kids, but it’s ALSO about kids.

          Government shouldn’t raise the desires of adults above the needs of children. It should champion both and be honest about what’s best.

          • Mike Hind says:

            This is nonsense. If this were in ANY way relevant, y’all would be fighting to make divorce illegal.

            Same sex marriage doesn’t tell a lie to anyone.

            What’s amazing to me about this whole argument of yours is that it’s, when you boil down to it:

            Gay people can’t have kids together, so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married because it’s not fair to the children… that they can’t have…

            Do you see how it’s a little crazy?

            Also… “telling that lie in our laws will cost us.”

            How? How will it cost us?

            • HW says:

              Thanks for making the point for us. When the law was changed to make divorce easier we saw the breakdown of the family unit. Allowing gay marriage only furthers that breakdown and sets a model that is far from ideal. Behavioral scientists have generations of evidence showing that children do best with their biological mother and father. Do your research and stop saying this isn’t true simply because you don’t want to accept it!

              Not all marriages result in kids but no union has the potential to bring about kids except that of 1 man and 1 woman. That is the model for our society and to promote anything other than that has proven to lead to a breakdown in the family unit and social issues that follow.

              • confused.. says:

                So HW I have a question, based on your theory that there is ‘evidence showing that children do best with their biological mother and father’… what does that say about the families that are comprised of a married male and female who used artificial insemination/sperm donors/surrogate mothers to procreate; does that mean that their children, because they are not necessarily their ‘biological’ children are not going to succeed, aren’t going to do well, will grow up disadvantaged??
                Or… are you just using the statement as an excuse for the fact that YOU personally disagree with two men or two women raising a child and that YOU do not believe that a child can be raised in a same sex household??… because as everyone is aware there are many ‘husband and wife’ families out there that are incapable of raising their child(ren) in a responsible, safe environment.

                I ask you to remember one thing: there are children out there being raised by their mother and grandmother in the same household and these children grow up to be respectful, successful adults. This type of environment is no different to a household that is comprised of two married women who would like to raise their child in a loving, caring, well educated environment. Both households have 2 women raising their (grand)child; showing them love, support, trust etc etc etc – the only difference is that in one circumstance the women are married which affords them the right to both be legally responsible for the child in the eyes of the ‘law’ and for both of them to be able to be at the child’s bedside, should their child ever be admitted to hospital or fall terminally ill – Oh but wait these two women living in Bermuda CANNOT be married – so I guess that child wont be able to say goodbye to one of the people has raised them and loved them for every day of their life… is that fair for the child? Does Bermuda really have the best interests of the child at heart? Is it fair for the child to experience this simply because people who will never participate in a same sex marriage or be personally affected by same sex marriages do not want to allow the same rights to the child’s parents?!!

              • Mike Hind says:

                I’m not just saying it’s wrong because I don’t want to accept it. You guys are.
                I’m saying it’s wrong and explaining why. With valid arguments.

                Your argument, that only a man and a woman can make a baby, is not a valid reason to oppose marriage equality because, as mentioned, procreation is not a stipulation for marriage.

          • bdaboy says:

            “Because kids need mommies and daddies,”

            Why aren’t you railing against the ‘baby daddys’ and single mommas so prevalent in Bermuda?
            Do you know who both your parents are? Were they ever married?

      • Cow Polly says:

        HW – how do I know they’re not doing this already? Because I haven’t seen the press statement. Haven’t seen the old Reverend out there tending to his flock in front of the cameras so I think its a safe bet. And homelessness is a real ‘huge implication for our society’ and both sides of the issue have acknowledged that. So no, its not a ridiculous statement. What is ridiculous is watching a bunch of homophobic scared individuals hiding behind religion and saying ‘we’re only doing God’s will’!

  11. Terry says:

    It’s all about ‘rights’.

    Never read or listened to so much garbage..

    It’s all about money.
    Shalom.

  12. Um Um Like says:

    Funny, a non-Bermudian speaking for Concerned CITIZENS of Bermuda!

    • Jones says:

      Sounds like the Bermuda Tourism Authority CEO.

    • Terry says:

      VAT about dee raveran speaking for the people.
      Short mamory.?

    • Ed says:

      Just like people’s complainers with the expat preacher.

    • HW says:

      And how many slogans and catch phrases have supporters of the redefining of marriage used from overseas? How many times have we heard how the rest of the world is doing this so we need to also, etc etc.

      It’s laughable and hypocritical for you to criticize one group for bringing in an a highly qualified speaker on the matter simply because he’s not bermudian while the other group has drawn a lot of influence from overseas themselves also.

  13. Triangle Drifter says:

    The “Concerned Citizens of Bermuda” eh…. Like they are the only people who have an opinion on the subject? Who are they? What other self appointed goups are they part of?

    No real need to ask. No surprises. Seems like another wing of the PLP like the other bible thumping group. At least we know how the PLP feel on the subject.

    Good gig for the speaker. Nice trip to Bermuda. Accomodation. Food. Speakers fees. Should be a fun trip for him.

  14. had enough says:

    The preference of Same Sex relationships have nothing at all to do with the institution of marriage. !!

    • Hmmm says:

      Are you talking about the church ritual known as wedding. Try not to mix the two things up. They are not the same.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Neither does the Church.

    • Come Correct says:

      So if a gay man, with a billion net worth, was outcasted by his family for his sexual preference and choice of partner had a brain aneurysm tomorrow and died at age 31 without writing a will, why should his net worth be divided between his immediate family rather than the person who chose to love him when his family couldn’t simply because he couldn’t get a legal document declaring the partnership? That is just one example. Right, because it goes against YOUR views. I personally saw 3 (mid 20′s early 30′s) young men in their Sunday best walk out of belvins with cases of liquor after church. Your opinion is irrelevant.

      • MPP says:

        In that case, you write a will.

      • PWH says:

        It would be an act of love for a gay person to get a will for their partner, this is a legal document that anyone can get that declares their love, especially if they know their fortune will go to some one else. It is also simple to legally give your partner the power of attorney insuring hospital visitations and decisions. If you love someone you provide for them and think ahead.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Exactly. And the way we do this is by getting married.

          Oh, wait…

        • Cow Polly says:

          Yes, it’s called marriage and a marriage certificate

        • Come Correct says:

          Because everyone expects to die at 31? The bus didn’t spare my family member because they hadn’t updated their will. Don’t be so basic.

    • Come Correct says:

      Oh and tomorrow night I’m gonna go make passionate love to my girl I haven’t seen in a few days, because my opinion on gay marriage is irrelevant.

  15. Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

    If you’re hetero you need to watch…If you’re homo you need to watch…
    http://cover-upz.blogspot.com/2015/04/satanic-illuminati-gay-agenda-exposed.html?m=1

  16. Balanced Facts says:

    “fosters moral integrity…” WOW, buckle up your homophobic seat belts of this guy…I can think of a couple of people (with guts to make a stand!) that hopefully will be there and stimulate things!

  17. Balanced Facts says:

    Listen to this interview…anyone would be forgiven for thinking this guy generally comes across as a nice GAY man! Interesting…

  18. MPP says:

    Are there arguments worth considering? Should we hear all sides of the debate before deciding whether or not to call marriage something it had never been called?

    Hear the arguments and decide.

    • Mike Hind says:

      But it HAS been called that. This revisionist history is just plain ignorance.
      There are numerous examples of same gender marriage throughout history.

      As for arguments against Marriage Equality worth considering?
      None that I’ve heard. Most are based on forcing other people to obey the rules of someone else’s personal choice of religions. The rest are based on misinformation and lies.

      If someone wants to come forward with an ACTUAL argument against Marriage Equality, I’d love to hear it.
      Until then, we’ve heard all the arguments and the ones against it have all been debunked.

      • Sandgrownan says:

        Mike, you and i both know there isn’t one. This is the worst sort of religious conservatism. I’m convinced that fundie christians are every bit as dangerous as fundie muslims. They’d impose their own version os sharia given half a chance. They need to be met head on each and every time.

        They should be treated with ridicule and contempt.

      • HW says:

        Actually you couldn’t be more wrong. Please listen to the many sources from behavioral and social scientists who have generations of data showing that children fare best when raised by their biological mother and father.

        True, not all marriages result in kids but why would we enshrine into law something that changes the ideal model for the upbringing of the next generation? To serve the desires of adults? Or should we think of the ideal model for kids?

        This is indisputable if anyone is unbiased enough to actually take time to examine the issue. However it’s pretty clear most are too emotional to listen to any reasoning on the subject.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Nope. This is not an argument against Marriage Equality.
          Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage, so the topic of kids is moot.

          Marriage is not ONLY “the ideal model for the upbringing of the next generation”.
          That is, quite simply, not the definition of marriage, therefore, your post, as an argument against marriage equality, is irrelevant.

          Do you have an ACTUAL argument against it?

        • JB says:

          Where is your (or the anti equal rights groups) vociferous denunciation of childbirth out of wedlock? You see, ‘family raising’ as an argument only holds value (albeit very little/none) if you actually care about family raising. Which church goers clearly don’t. Which is surprising as it’s not like them to be hypocritical. So just admit you hate gays and stop making yourself look foolish with the big worded and ‘logical’ arguments that don’t hold water.

        • what children need says:

          Many children raised by their biological mother and father end up not faring well. Point blank, children fare best when 2 parents love them and support healthy attachments, learning and development.

          Especially in Bermuda — and other homophobic countries — consider the very sad scenario where a stigmatized gay man has no option but to marry and keep a wife and have children with her just to be seen by his religious family/fundamentalist peers as “not being gay.” What does this teach our children? What will the child observe when learning about love and authenticity from his false parents? Don’t even try to tell me this isn’t a consequence and that it doesn’t happen in Bermuda.

          If you want the best for the children, then make it mandatory for parents to have to pass a test first about child psychology and development because that would actually make a difference.

          The argument that a straight couple can raise kids more ideally than a guy couple is patently false, even from a sociological point of view, unless you of course include the situational scenario of that family existing within a gay-intolerant prejudiced community.

          Read up on the science of it.
          http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-scientific-truth-about-kids-who-grow-up-with-same-sex-parents-2015-6
          “…openly supporting the rights of same-sex couples is one of the best things governments can do to support children being raised by same-sex parents.”

          Bermuda is one of the last remaining 1st world nations so saddled with dogmatic religious people that it prevents progress towards tolerance and understanding and inclusiveness which would ultimately help all our children.

        • what children need says:

          I encourage you to read this literature review and analysis of studies on child development in hetero vs. homosexual households.

          Many of the behavioral and social science studies to date that have supported the “biological mother and father” conclusion were in fact gravely skewed in methodology and evaluation.

          Re-examining the evidence of more than 11 previous studies revealed the following:

          - no difference in psychiatric disorder or mental health

          - no significant difference in child development and parenting styles

          - differences in discipline, imagination and gender norms (which should be regarded as progressive and alternative)

          - “the bulk of problems faced by children of homosexual households are the result of problems from outside as opposed to inside the family, the necessary changes should be focused on the larger society (Brubaker, 2002).”

          - “Rather than condemning the differences that accumulate through relationships with non-traditional parents, psychologists, sociologists, and theorists must understand that these differences should be respected and protected in democratic societies (Stacey and Biblarz, 2001).”

          http://www.swarthmore.edu/writing/growing-under-rainbow-a-study-child-development-lesbigay-households

        • bdaboy says:

          ” Please listen to the many sources from behavioral and social scientists who have generations of data showing that children fare best when raised by their biological mother and father.”

          Then you might want to start a campaign in Bermuda about the numerous single parent families, baby daddies and lack of wedlock.
          Otherwise, you just look like a hateful hypocrite.

      • PWH says:

        I invite you to remember that marriage does not happen in a vacume. It effects and is effected by all that touches it, no matter what culture or religion. So in concidering marriage one has to look at all that it may imply and all that it will effect. Children are a part of many marriages. You may not want children, however many ss couples do want children. So one must look at the ramifications of all that means. Children have been the victumes of adult decisions for centuries.

        • Mike Hind says:

          So… how will this affect society?

          You haven’t actually given any effects here…

  19. shutthemdown says:

    If you take the time to read the comments you will see where the real hate is.

    Call ppl names just because they don’t see the world as you do.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Calling people names isn’t “real hate”.

      Real hate is supporting the denial of equal rights to an entire section of our community.

  20. work permit?whats he cost to spread S*** every one has a brain to make their own enlightened opinion but they don’t need to impose their narrow mindedness on me. i am NOT one of the so called 7000 petitioners. are they going to charge admission or take a collection. Religious zealots

  21. had enough says:

    If someone wants to come forward with an ACTUAL argument for Marriage Equality, I’d love to hear it.

    • Walk in their shoes says:

      What about that example posted above about the guy dying without a will and his partner getting cast aside because they weren’t able to marry?

      • MPP says:

        This calls for a potential change in inheritance/estate laws. It doesn’t call for a complete redefinition of what a marriage is.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Why not? We redefine marriage all the time. We’ve been doing it for centuries.

          • PWH says:

            Can you please give some concrete examples of this??

            • Mike Hind says:

              Sure. When we got rid of miscegenation. How’s that?

              • PWH says:

                that is not changing marriage as defined as between a man and a woman….. that only has to do with who when and how

          • MPP says:

            That’s worked out great for us, hasn’t it?

            • Mike Hind says:

              Yeah. It has! The most recent one has worked out AMAZINGLY!

    • Mike Hind says:

      Easy.

      It would end a long-standing denial of equal rights to couples.

      Isn’t that enough?

      • HW says:

        It’s not a denial of equal rights. Everyone is allowed to enter into a marriage. However, marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay people are attempting to take redefine something that doesn’t fit their lifestyle.

        If we head down this road of redefining things, where does it stop?

        Maybe if people weren’t so quick to spew their hate and actually listened to Dr. Anderson’s points, we could have a proper discussion.

        • Mike Hind says:

          It absolutely is a denial of rights.
          Your position has been debunked so many times, it’s ridiculous.

          The “Slippery Slope” argument has been debunked, time and again.

          Where does it stop, with regards to this? It stops with Marriage Equality. It stops with people that want to marry the person they love being allowed to do so.

          The only person spewing hate are the people looking to deny rights and privileges to their fellow citizens.

          • MPP says:

            If an adult brother and sister wish to marry, should we stop them? We do now. What if it’s true love? Is this “discriminatory” or do we limit what relationships we call a marriage for good reason?

            A question like “where do we draw the line?” isn’t automatically a “slippery slope argument.” It’s a valid question.

            Not only do you mislabel the question as a slippery slope argument, but you fail to realize that an “A leads to B” argument is only invalid IF there is no good reason to believe that A leads to B. You can’t dismiss any argument of that structure out of hand.

            • Mike Hind says:

              *sigh*
              Here we go.

              First off, legally, brothers and sisters have familial rights, so that’s not a factor in their getting married. They’re already family and are, literally, next of kin.
              Secondly, SHOULD they decide to have kids, there is a very real chance of harm to the child. This is where consent comes in again.

              Thirdly, you saying it’s not a slippery slope argument… after leading off with a slippery slope argument – incest – is insane.

              I don’t dismiss ANY argument out of hand. I debunk them using facts and reality and not stuff I made up.

              Weird that you ignored the rest of my post…

              • MPP says:

                I posited a scenario to you. I didn’t say anything about that scenario being a result of legalizing same-sex marraige and I drew no causal link. There was no A leads to B.

                i.e. – no “slope”.

                Yet you still say I was “leading off with a slippery slope argument”?

                You really aren’t seeing that you don’t even understand what a slippery slope argument is?

                Then, you don’t answer the question at all, since there is a pecking order to next of kin rights and if a parent is alive, they’re first in line. Brother/sister familial rights do not equal marital rights… but you know that.

                But if the incestuousness of the scenario distracts you, answer the real question: is there ever a valid reason to tell two consenting adults that they can’t marry?

                • Mike Hind says:

                  You like to play silly games, don’t you? Let’s ignore the really obvious trolling and get down to this next little distraction of yours. I can’t WAIT to see where it leads.

                  “is there ever a valid reason to tell two consenting adults that they can’t marry?”

                  As long as it won’t harm another person, I don’t see any. Why? Do you have some?

                  Is there a valid reason to tell to consenting adults of the same gender that they can’t marry?

                  Would you care to answer that one?

    • Ash says:

      It’s simple if people want to marry someone and their all consenting adults, there’s no reason to not allow it. So either we’re doing away with marriage entirely and no one is allowed to get married (because marriage is actually harmful) or everyone is allowed to marry anyone they want as long as all parties are consenting adults (because if a man and a woman being married is ok then so is a man and a man or a woman and a woman). The only argument to make is the equality argument, the all or none argument. Either everyone gets their rights or no one does because THAT’S equality. Unless you could prove how they’re not the same thing….

  22. Walk in their shoes says:

    Concerned Citizens sure was able to raise some good money over recent months. TV spots, newspaper ads, website, and now bringing in an overseas speaker? Pretty impressive.

  23. Bermyman says:

    I worry about the future of our Island. Any accurate reading of the bible should make it clear that gay rights goes against the plain truth of the word of god. As one preacher warns, man and overstepping the boundary lines god has drawn by making special rights for gays and lesbians has taken another step in the direction of inviting the judgment of god upon our land.

    This step of gay rights is but another stepping stone toward the immorality and lawlessness that will be characteristic of the last days.

    When you run into conflict with god’s established order you have trouble. You do not produce harmony. You produce destruction and trouble and our island is in the greatest danger that it has have ever been in, in its history. The reason is that we have gotten away from the bible of our forefathers.

    Everything I typed are direct quotes from white preachers from the 1950s and 1960s, all in support of racial segregation and keeping marriage between a white man and a white woman. All I have done is simply taken out the phrases racial integration/interracial marriage and substituted with the phrase gay rights.

    Now ask yourself are you on the right side of this argument ?

    • HW says:

      Flawed comparison. The ideology behind interracial marriage being illegal was based solely on a racist agenda and served no other purpose.

      Being black is not a moral behavior. Black people are discriminated against simply for their appearance which can never be hidden, controlled or changed.

      • Mike Hind says:

        What other purpose does opposition to Marriage Equality have?

        • MPP says:

          Marriage Equality is a misnomer. This is redefinition of marriage.

          But we aren’t allowed to talk to you about the fact that marriage provides a critical function for our society not only with respect to “love between two people” but also since, legally/sociologically/biologically marriage is the cornerstone of the FAMILY, which then is the cornerstone of our society.

          Governments protect marriages since they are designed for love AND the raising of our kids, and we pay a collective social cost when forget that.

          But you continually deny the kids part as invalid… which is a big problem.

          • Mike Hind says:

            No. The problem is your insistence that kids are an integral part and a stipulation to marriage.

            It simply is not. At all.

            The evidence of this, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, is that infertile people are allowed to marry.

            Barring a group of people because they are unable to procreate together is invalid.
            It is absolutely not a valid argument against marriage equality.
            It’s not even a valid argument against the redefinition of marriage.
            Speaking of… what’s so bad with redefining marriage? We’ve done it many, many times in the past.

            You absolutely are allowed to talk to me about anything. I’m not stopping you from doing it. What I AM doing is pointing out, with evidence, that you are incorrect in your position. Because you are. Completely. Absolutely incorrect.

      • Walk in their shoes says:

        What are the moral issues about loving and wanting to commit legally to another person, though?

    • bdaboy says:

      ” Any accurate reading of the bible..”

      lol…since when did you people ready anything accurately, who cares how accurate you think this fairy tale is anyway.
      You bigots are laughable.

  24. JohnnyBread says:

    Can somebody please explain to me what the bible has to do with this? Marriage is not a Christian thing. Hell, churches don’t even perform marriages. So please, can somebody please explain to me what the bible has to do with this??

    • Daylilly says:

      In researching the issue, a universal thread was manifested…. that in nearly every major world religion and even in communist societies that promote no religion at all, marriage has historically been between a man and woman. It’s not just a religious tenet, it has historically been legislated across religions and cultures… even those societies that are diametrically opposed on most other views.

      Often the argument has been that a man/woman marriage lays the best societal foundation and offers a future for its citizens.

      Almost the entire continents of Africa, Asia and Australia have maintained a stance against SSM marriage and it’s not necessarily based on religion or bigotry, additionally, the Supreme Court Justices that voted against SSM didn’t quote the scriptures.

      This perspective that hateful religious zealots are the only people opposed to SSM is being promoted by a Christophobic culture and an anti-Christian agenda.

  25. Daylilly says:

    It’s great to see that Concerned Citizens of Bermuda has enabled intelligent and principled dialogue. Everyone on both sides of the issue should attend the meetings.

  26. feel the love says:

    If Concerned Citizens of Bermuda were so interested in an open dialogue about marriage they would have people from both sides of the issue speaking. Instead they chose to promote only one side. Not an open discussion at all. Hamilton Princess has lost a faithful patron.

    • Daylilly says:

      Sorry feel the love you misquoted me…. The statement said “intelligent and principled dialogue”, not to say that opposing viewpoints can’t both be intelligent and principled.

  27. Billy de Kidd says:

    Agreed, I can’t support those that give this group an outlet. Not the smartest of business decisions.

  28. Daylilly says:

    Unfortunately, the opinions have been very one sided and vindictive. Anyone in opposition to the SSM agenda receives the “hate” label and is threatened…. at the very least with financial harm. I’m certain many hotels have held functions that discussed controversial topics. I guess it’s a great plan…..label everyone who disagrees with you as hateful and cut the rest off at their financial knees…. Sounds a lot like intolerance to me.

  29. Mike Hind says:

    How will redefining marriage to include same gender couples affect anyone else in any way?

    • PWH says:

      Any legislation will effect a wide range of areas. You can expect severe erosion of freedoms when same-sex marriage is mandated. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

      In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place here now could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

      In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.
      Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association.

      In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Gasp! This is shocking!

        How DARE they punish people for saying horrible, hateful and false things?
        How DARE they protect an oppressed group from a larger group that wants to spread lies and misinformation about them!

        Here’s the thing. Canadians still have all those freedoms. They’re just not allowed to use those freedoms to harm others.

      • bdaboy says:

        “In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure.”

        No, they haven’t.

        “Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.”

        Absolutely untrue, you’re making up lies and it’s pathetic.

        “In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents.”

        Wrong again

        “. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.”

        Where do you get this crap? Are you trying to be funny?

        “In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.”

        No in any way shape or form. You’re either completely ignorant or are attempting to be sarcastic.

  30. Citmin says:

    Surely this debate has 2 sides. I think to label any group as hate or as phobia is nonsense and makes the other side appear threatened. When does hearing another side become hate. Don’t both sides have the right to express their opinion? Lets be adults here.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Absolutely! And if the other side comes up with an actual valid reason to deny rights to a group of fellow citizens, I’d LOVE to hear it.

      But, sadly, they don’t. They roll out the same tired, false arguments.
      Incest. Paedophilia. Bestiality (hasn’t happened in this one, yet, but give it time).
      Procreation as a stipulation. “The bible says…”

      None of these are actual reasons to oppose marriage equality.

      The reason people use the word hate when describing opponents to same sex marriage is because they are actively supporting the denial of equal rights to a group of their fellow citizens, based on nothing valid. That sounds like hate to me.

    • JB says:

      Hate happens when one side tries to keep a minority disenfranchised. Without the same rights as them. And bandies the bible around like it is the truth/has any bearing on the whole issue. Being intolerant to intolerance is not hateful. It’s what all religious zealots who oppose equal rights deserve.

  31. PWH says:

    Masha Gossen declares it will effect everyone. In defense of the gay lifestyle choice Masha Gossen reveals to a large audience of gay activist that their final solution is to use government legislations to destroy the meaning of marriage for future generations of children, along with their rights to expect to be raised by a mother and a father.
    In a 2013 leaked video Ms. Gossen reveals the following:
    “I agree, it is a no brainer that we should have the right to marry, but uh, I also think equally that it is a no brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist! So uh (huge applause from gay activist audience) that that causes my brain some trouble, uh and uh, and some of it why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage once we get there. Because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change and that is a lie.”

  32. Rhonnie aka Blue Familiar says:

    I don’t think that this speaker would fall under the banner of ‘hate speech’. He has his opinions and values and apparently they align with the beliefs of the ‘Concerned Citizens’ group.

    Do I agree with his opinions? Nope.
    Do I think he’s going to successfully sway anyone into being against same-sex marriage if they’re on the fence or already supporting it? Nope.

    His purpose, whether the people who are bringing him in realise they’re doing it or not, is as a means of publicly justifying their stance. For these people, nothing anyone is going to say is going to change what they think.

    Same as nothing anyone says is going to change my belief that denying same-sex marriage is inhumane.

    But if you want to get into the origins of marriage. Yes, formalised marriage came about due to procreation. The goal was for men to bind women to them, monogamously, in order to keep their genes primary. This is why originally men were allowed to marry as many women as they wanted. More women, more kids, more kids, more dominant their genes were.

    There’s your origin of marriage. Nothing to do with religion, unless said man happened to be of a particular religion and wanted to expand that religions believer base. (Ever wondered why the Catholics have long been against birth control? It’s all about numbers.) Back in the day when church and state were pretty much one and the same. More people, more power, more power… you get the idea.

    So … let’s come forward to today.

    The point of marriage is no longer about procreation. We’ve successfully over-populated the world to the point where having kids isn’t a necessity. Back in the day children followed in their parents footsteps, not so today, so the whole expanding the religious base has no bearing either.

    The question then becomes … what is marriage, in this day and age, about?

    People in all religions marry, so not one religion can claim marriage as it’s very own. People not involved in any way shape or form in any religion can marry. (Why? Because licences are handed out by governments, not churches.) People who can’t procreate, or don’t want to procreate, can get married. (I’d already shot down the procreation bit, but here’s a second reason.)

    So again … what is marriage, in this day and age, about?

    It’s about pledging your love and devotion to another person in front of family and friends and the law. Yes. The law. Because that’s the big issue here. Legal rights.

    Aside from the extremists who want to force churches to change their values and most people in support of same-sex marriage don’t want to do that. (We all know about extremists right? If not, take a look world news.) Us average people, we just want people like ourselves to have the same rights that we have, regardless of their gender, their sex, their religion, etc.

    The argument that ‘my belief system says it’s wrong therefore no one should do it’ just doesn’t cut it. It doesn’t.

    Out there in the big bad world there’s this group, you may have heard of them, Islamic State? They want to kill everyone who believes differently from what they believe.

    Maybe those who are against same-sex marriage aren’t advocating killing. But the basic mindset is the same.

    “My belief system says it’s wrong, therefore no one should do it.”

    You don’t have to change your beliefs to support same-sex marriage. You can think they’re sinners who need to repent. You can think they’re going to hell. But this isn’t a good rationale to deny them this legal right.

    Athiests, adulterers, murderers, rapists, paedophiles. All sinners. All need to repent. All likely to go to hell. But so long as it’s with a member of the opposite sex they can get married.

    But two other people, basically good, hard-working people can’t, all because of their physical form.

    How about instead of “The Bible says … ” you say “Not in my church”. I think we can agree on that.

    • Daylilly says:

      “Blue familiar” If we all believed that random chaos creates intelligent design and brings order, then your concept that men used marriage to bind women to them would hold somewhat true… But where did men come from and where did men get this drive to reproduce after his kind.

      Your theory only partially holds true, you see we keep leaving out that there IS an Intelligence that governs this universe and its authority pre-dated mankind, men or religion. I call this intelligence God.

      This Intelligence designed and instilled an instinct to be fruitful and multiply; all of the whole earth is evidence of this. From the tiniest seed to the largest mammal, they all live to fulfill that God given mandate.

      It is not solely the power of men or made up church rules (made by men) for the sake of power that sanctions marriage. Marriage in its original intent was 1 man and 1 woman, as it turns out, that has often been the ideal in many communities around the world religious or not. Surely the whole world couldn’t be hateful religious, Christian zealots.

      How could most of the major religions and countries, communist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim all agree that marriage was between a man and a woman; it seems that they could agree on nothing else. Perhaps it is because this is fundamental to our existence. It is not a man-made punishment to bind women in any way… Although it has been used and abused in that manner.

      And children would love to still follow in their parent’s footsteps, it’s just that a lot of parents have bought into the concept that marriage is an irrelevant trap to “bind” them down and their children can be raised by social media and an institution.

      In terms of what “marriage is really about”, if it were about legally pledging love and legal rights, that question has already been answered and SSM proponents say that’s not good enough.

      Speaking of the law of the land, most laws, particularly in Western societies were developed based on Biblical/religious principles… So, again we go back to the beginning. It was correct thousands of years ago and time will bear out that it is still true today, irrespective of the man-made rules of the Supreme Court or any other legislative initiative.

  33. Coffee says:

    I think we should follow the Japanese on this one . Any other way is just creepy .

  34. Hardtalk says:

    I will be calling The Hamilton Princess today to inform them that I will no longer be supporting their establishment with my hard earned dollars. I suggest that those of you who are like minded make the same call. Dollars speak louder than ‘endless rhetoric’.

    • bdaboy says:

      I’m sure they’ll crumble and change their mind because you, who have never spent a penny there, expresses your bigotry.

  35. Starting point says:

    Ironic how Bermudians with their faith based so called moral stance around marriage are hypocritical when the focus turns on the ‘sin’ of single parenting and divorce.

    If their argument is that legal representation should only be available to men and women unions and not any other, then a single parent should be ostracized the same way as a homosexual couple.

  36. welllll says:

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/17/meet-ryan-anderson-the-anti-lgbt-scholar-peddli/203689

    “Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan T. Anderson routinely appears in the media under the guise of a serious academic opposed to same-sex marriage and LGBT equality. But despite the veneer of credibility his resume provides, Anderson routinely peddles false and misleading claims about the LGBT community and legal protections for LGBT people.”

  37. Will says:

    I’m still trying to figure out their group name..concerned citizens…what exactly are you concerned about? Gay marriage bringing about the end of days? Puhleeze!! will you people keep your noses out of someone else’s personal business

  38. Citmin says:

    I find it amazing that anytime someone agrees with marriage that has been around for thousands of years between a man and a woman becomes hate speech to those who support it. What days are we living in when tolerance now means approve my opinion or I will bully you into silence. Shameful.

    • Mike Hind says:

      This entire post has been addressed many, many times.

      Marriage has been redefined many, many times over those thousands of years.
      Marriage HAS been between two people of the same gender in that time.
      It’s not the viewpoint, it’s the denial of rights.
      Nobody is silencing anyone. Pointing out misinformation and lies and flaws in thinking is not an attempt to silence anyone. It’s discussion. If your position is strong, you can defend it with truth and facts and evidence.
      The problem is: the position against marriage equality ISN’T strong, therefore, it has to be defended by dishonest means.

  39. Citmin says:

    I think both side should be able to debate and present their view. What’s the big deal here.

    • Mike Hind says:

      The big deal is that one side is using false information and lies to deny rights to a group of their fellow citizens.
      There can be no honest debate when one side can’t even come up with a single valid argument to support their position.

  40. Hmmmmmmm says:

    Describing this guy (and others) as “ignorant” isn’t name calling, it’s stating a fact. He’s ignorant, meaning: lacking knowledge or awareness.

  41. Hardtalk says:

    As I said earlier, all this rhetoric is just a waste of effort. All it took is one phone call. The Hamilton Princess has just announced that they will NOT be hosting Mr. Anderson as a speaker at their hotel. As an organization “they celebrate diversity”. The LGBT tourist market is very large and the Green family are more than wise enough to know that it would be business suicide to marginalise themselves by being seen to be associated with such a group of so called “Concerned Citizens”.
    Well done Hamilton Princess, I will now continue to bring my business to your hotel. I applaud you for doing the right thing.

  42. Daylilly says:

    Wow! Well done! So I guess disenfranchised and marginalized is not the correct terms to describe proponents of the SSM agenda… It is instead the terms used to describe anyone who stands against them.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Nope. No one is using those words to describe opponents to Marriage Equality…

      Except for them themselves, of course, so that they can pretend to be victims.

  43. Actually I believe Hamilton Princess made and error in Judgement. All parties have the right to an open forum at their facilities. If it was the LGBT group having an open discussion on the opposing view subject matter would the Hamilton Princess Management object? Diversity is allowing all sides, not one that you are in favour of.

Sign Up For Our Free Email Newsletters

email-banners-good-news-370

Latest Bernews Current Affairs Podcasts