First off, procreation is in no way a stipulation for marriage. A couple’s ability to have children has no bearing on their ability to get married. At all. It simply doesn’t. This is a completely incorrect point. To imply that marriage is “rooted in the biology of procreation” is, plain and simple, wrong. It’s incorrect. I don’t know how to make that clearer. Infertile couples are allowed to marry. Post menopausal women are allowed to marry. To base opposition to marriage equality on the ability to procreate is misguided and misinformed.
“This formation of 2 coming together to do the above is biologically and historically been defined as marriage.” is an incorrect statement. Marriage is about rights and property. The ability to procreate has NOT “historically been defined as marriage”.

You say “…every adult has the freedom to live with each other…”, which is another bit of false information. Gay couples from different countries do NOT have that freedom. Your premise is incorrect.

“All the challenges that historically have been made in reference to being married have been including people under the governments definition of marriage, not redefining the government’s definition.”
At one point, in some places, the government’s definition of marriage included restrictions based on race. This definition was changed. The challenges that historically have been made in reference to being married DID, in fact, happen because the government redefined it.
In addition to this, all we are asking is for people to be included under the definition. That’s it.
I’m sorry, but to imply that we shouldn’t change the government’s definition of marriage because we shouldn’t change the definition of marriage is a circular argument based on false information. The definition HAS been changed in the past. To say it hasn’t is incorrect.

“If a people who have years of history supporting this governmental definition request that this definition not be changed, why would this be considered hate propaganda.”
Because it’s hate. It’s the denial of rights and privileges to a group of people based on either someone’s personal choice of religions or based on false, dishonest arguments and logical fallacies.

“But if the specific rights are the issue, there has been no initial directive to expand these rights (eg. insurance coverage for couples), just to change the definition.”
Are you serious with this? That’s what this is all about! Expanding the rights is EXACTLY what we’re talking about. The ones changing the argument to “changing the definition” and “procreation” and all sorts of other nonsense are the ones fighting against it! Come on. This is a completely dishonest argument.

“Yet we know that we do restrict marriage according to age, we restrict marriage according to mental status.”
Yes. And these are based on consent. Children and mentally incapable people CANNOT offer consent.
This is not true of two adults. No one is suggesting changing anything to involve lack of consent. This is a moot point.

“In a democratic society that is done in the form of a vote, not by the few making decision for the many.”
No, in a democracy, it is the government’s duty to protect the minority from the majority.

And, finally, polygamy is an entirely different topic and has nothing to do with marriage equality.
No one has started a movement to support polygamy. No one is seriously attaching polygamy to the marriage equality movement. This argument is a distraction from the real issue.
The “slippery slope” argument has been debunked many, many times.

Sorry, but nothing in this post is a real reason to deny someone equal rights and privileges. At all.

“If a woman is pregnant the marriage has already taken place”??
That is… wow.

Just so not correct at all!

However, it would be interesting to know if all of our churches, and all of the folks who have expressed often virulent views against same sex marriages would be willing to actively support same sex civil unions. I seriously doubt it.

So… What was your point? Other than to insult me?

Wait… Isn’t that bad?

Put simply, I simply wish to marry. For love.

However, I do want my marriage to be recognized.

Please think carefully about this. As bermudians you are isolating a whole cross section of your population, who just like me, are frustrated and disgusted by the opposition reactions and comments.

It is indeed an insult irrespective of how one comes to that conclusion. You cannot refer to an entire group of people in such a derogatory manner and then hide behind the silly excuse it is based on years of observation. That type of thinking and behavior is typical of bigots.

If you really believe that Mike then you are either intellectually challenged or intellectually dishonest with no moral barometer whatsoever.

Surely showing examples of these infringements would be easy if they are really happening, no?

Why the reticence to show them?

This is the problem. Y’all are so worried about what everyone else does when it’s none of your business.

How you raise your kids is YOUR business, nobody else’s and, as such, should have ABSOLUTELY no bearing on how other people run their lives and is ABSOLUTELY not a reason to deny equal rights and privileges to someone.

But to dismiss it because pot isn’t legal is a misstep.

Paedophilia has no place in this conversation.

As for it not being ok… It is.
You don’t have to like it, but you don’t have the right to deny people rights and privileges afforded to us all.

As for your “happening in animals as well” thing? This has been debunked many, many times.
You can believe God created people, that’s your right. But forcing other people to believe what you believe and follow the rules of your religion – through this legislation denying people rights and privileges – is just plain wrong.

It would appear that churches have special privileges that allow them to indeed choose who to administer the rites of matrimony in a marriage ceremony…