Preserve Marriage Increases ‘Action Team’

December 22, 2015

Preserve Marriage Bermuda — the group behind the petition opposing same sex marriage — said they have increased their community action team from 25 to 198 people, adding that they will be ”rolling out some key initiatives designed to strengthen marriages and families within Bermuda.”

Growth Of Community Action Team

A spokesperson said, “The group of concerned citizens who formed Preserve Marriage Bermuda held a committee action meeting last night growing their community action team from 25 to 198 people.

“Each person on the almost 200 strong diverse committee has volunteered on various teams to ensure marriage is preserved in the Island of Bermuda.

Group picture[1]gfffg

“Preserve Marriage is the group behind the petition seeking support for Marriage in Bermuda to continue to be defined as being between a man and a woman. The online petition which was launched in October 2015 now has more than 7,400 signatures.

“Among the group spokespersons for the evening were educator and retired principal Dr. Melvyn Bassett, Pastor Gary Simons, Senior Pastor at Cornerstone Bible Fellowship and Mark Hall, Regional Director of Word of Life Caribbean and Bermuda along with other Directors who lead action teams for the more than 173 additional persons who showed up to be put to work.

Pastor Simons stated, “Preserve Marriage was created by a group of concerned citizens in Bermuda representing a wide cross-section of the community including people of faith along with those who do not practice faith.

“This movement is continually growing and consists of community leaders, tradesmen, civil servants, pastors, educators, hospitality workers, business owners, homemakers, doctors and lawyers. All of whom were present at the meeting, ready and excited to serve.”

Leading The Cause

Dr Bassett said, “We have decided to serve the people of Bermuda by leading the cause to preserve marriage in our country in order to provide direction and support for the over 7,400 people who signed the petition and agree that marriage should remain as currently defined and we have an uncompromising stand do this in a loving way.

“We anticipate our action committee will continue to grow. We will not be intimidated nor will we participate or support any verbal bullying or derogatory remarks by either side as we all have a right to express our views in a respectful manner as mature adults.”

Role Marriage Plays In Society

A spokesperson said, “Preserve Marriage Bermuda has a simple message: First, We believe that marriage should remain as a special union between a man and a woman because of the important role marriage plays in society.

“This union celebrates the necessary natural differences between a male and a female to procreate and strengthen the family unit and therefore our society.

“Men and women, who become husbands and wives, who become fathers and mothers, bring separate, distinct and irreplaceable parenting dynamics to the life of a child.

“These dynamics play a key role in the rearing and development of children, which ultimately results in a public benefit. Marriage is a private promise with a public purpose.

 Voices Heard By A Referendum

“Secondly, We believe that a few should not decide for the many. In a democratic society the voting public should have the right and dignity to have their voices heard by a referendum on this important issue before any changes are made to the definition of marriage.

“Bermudians should have a voice on such an important civic issue. It cannot and should not be left to the Courts alone.”

Mr. Hall stated, “In the coming weeks, Preserve Marriage Bermuda will be rolling out some key initiatives designed to strengthen marriages and families within Bermuda and informing the community of the importance of marriage for everyone in society at large, all of which will be done in an engaging and loving way while being open to serve and have respectful conversations with the LGBT community.”


The spokesperson said, “People who have already signed the petition and would like to join the almost 200 strong Preserve Marriage Action Committee have been asked to email Preserve Marriage at and those who are yet to sign the petition can visit and join the 7,400 that are taking an unwavering stand to preserve marriage in Bermuda.”

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (478)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. O'Brien says:

    “So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:13)

    • Strike fund says:

      Tis the season for intolerance tra la la la….

      Surely it would be better to focus their message on the fathers that walk out on their kids and offer no support to the mothers. These are the people that need help with the role of marriage in society.

      • The Dark Knight Returns says:

        They are entitled to their opinion. Why is it that it feels if no one is aligned with the gay views there’s an issue? I personally do not agree with all that is going on forcing people to accept this type of behavior. I am confused about the stance the Chief Justice took. He ignored the bible and made a same sex relationship ruling. Does this mean the bible will be taken out of the court room now? And does it mean that persons giving evidence do not have to take the oath using the bible?

        • Mike Hind says:

          People don’t have to swear on a bible if they choose not to. It is not a stipulation.

          So, yes. The bible CAN be taken out of the courtroom. The Chief Justice was under no obligation to follow it.

        • Spectator says:

          News flash. The court has never used the Bible as a reference for decision making. The references are the Constitution and Bermuda law, which, thankfully, have nothing to do with any religion.

        • cat says:

          BIBLE has NOTHING to do with marriage… get that thru your mind please! If it did, then Athiests wouldn’t be allowed to marry. Get it now?

          • hmmm says:

            Exactly…why can’t those people understand such a simple thing?

            • hmmm says:


              The photo used in this article is fakery !
              It has been manufactured to suit a purpose, much like the petition !

              Does good or evil use trickery and fakery to decieve ???


              • Coffee says:

                Dr.Bassett is a awesome MAN , he leads by strength and great character … I will support the effort even though it seems as if we’ll be pushing ……against the tide .

              • MPP says:

                LOL. The photo is a fake?

                So those people weren’t there? They’ve been photoshopped in or taking a picture for some other reason?

                • Just Me says:

                  I dont think they all knew they were going to be asked to pose for the picture and it to be published with such a headline.

          • True Believer says:

            Really???? hmmmm well what do you think about this and this all came from the BIBLE.

            Bible Verses About Marriage – Marriage is a sacred vow between a man and woman and the Bible offers many verses that offer guidance for married couples, husbands, wives, newlyweds and engagement. Read verses from the Holy Bible about marriage in relation to God, Jesus Christ, and the Christian faith.

            In the middle of a struggling marriage, it’s very easy to focus on what’s wrong instead of stopping to listen to God and ask Him for guidance. Here are 5 prayers for marriage that can help you tune into what God’s will is for your life and your marriage.

            Use our Bible verses by topic page which lists popular verses from the Old and New Testaments.

            Genesis 2:22-0

            22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman, ‘ for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

            Proverbs 5:18-0

            18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 A loving doe, a graceful deer– may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.

            Proverbs 12:4

            4 A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.

            Proverbs 18:22

            22 He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.

            Proverbs 19:14

            14 Houses and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the LORD.

            Proverbs 20:6-0

            6 Many a man claims to have unfailing love, but a faithful man who can find? 7 The righteous man leads a blameless life; blessed are his children after him.

            Proverbs 30:18-0

            18 “There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand: 19 the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a maiden.

            Proverbs 31:10

            10 A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.

            Ephesians 5:22-0

            22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church– 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

            Deuteronomy 24:5

            5 If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

            Matthew 19:4-0

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

            1 Corinthians 7:1-0

            1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

            Colossians 3:18-0

            18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

            Hebrews 13:4-0

            4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” 6 So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” 7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

            Mark 10:6-0

            6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

            • Mike Hind says:

              That can apply to your marriage if you wish, but should not and does not apply to anyone else’s if they don’t wish it to.

            • inkblot101 says:

              Honey. Christianity is not the be all and end all of marriage. People were getting married long before it existed and plenty of people don’t include it in their marriage ceremonies.

              Also, the Bible is not really the best text to make legal decisions on: It recommends selling a rape victim to her rapist and/or stoning her to death.

          • Daylilly says:

            Speaking of Atheists…Atheists and communist countries are some of the staunchest opponents of SSM. Countries like Russia and China aren’t by any means in the Bible Belt and they say no to SSM.

            Billions of people who have never read a Bible still agree with its truth about marriage. Christophobic, anti-Christian rhetoric won’t change the truth about marriage.

            • Mike Hind says:

              And none of this is a reason to continue denying rights to citizens of Bermuda.

              Do you have one?

            • aceboy says:

              “..Atheists and communist countries are some of the staunchest opponents of SSM. Countries like Russia and China aren’t by any means in the Bible Belt and they say no to SSM.”

              So, bigoted Bermudians are closer to Russians than north Americans, got it.

            • Think outside the Bible... says:

              The “billions” of people against SSM who have not read the Bible are basing their views and opinions on the message driven into them by people who have read the Bible. Or they’re just flat-out bigots. Whichever.
              Even your reference of “the truth about marriage” is a statement based on religion, because there is no “truth” about marriage, it’s simply a union of two people who love each other.
              Focus energy on preserving the marriages that already exist but end up in divorce have the time. Sick the church on the parents who abandon their children and don’t pay child support. Have the church cast out the people cheating on their spouses in front of everyone and shame THEM for going against “god”.
              Before you go comparing countries like China and Russia for sticking to their strict no-SSM rule, ask yourself if you really want to love in either of those countries? I personally think you should. People with ancient views belong in ancient countries who won’t let go of their severely dated opinions. Look at the top happiest countries in the world…all legalized gay marriage ages ago, and most of them are not known to be “churchy”. Is that a coincidence? I think not…

        • AEG says:

          You actually have the choice in Court now. You can swear on the Bible if that is what you believe, or you can make a solemn oath. That is because for some people, the Bible is just a book. We need to realise that Christianity is not the only religion and that people are entitled to believe (or not believe) whatever they want to. Just because Bermuda is majority Christian does not mean that those of us who are not are any less Bermudian. We need to take religion out of law making for that very reason. Why should Christianity get to be the religion that is chosen over every other?

        • aceboy says:

          ” I am confused about the stance the Chief Justice took.”

          You seem to be confused about many things, and ignorant of other things.
          that doesn’t mean the rest of society should share your ignorance.
          Educate yourself, stupidity is nothing to be proud of.

        • Sid says:

          Dark Knight: I don’t think you should be allowed to get married. I think there should be a law against it. I’m entitled to my opinion and my opinion should be the law.

          If you disagree, you are forcing me to accept your behaviour, which I don’t. It is my religious belief that you should not be allowed to get married. Why is it that if you are not aligned with my belief, there’s an issue?

        • Common Sense says:

          You need not be confused! Thankfully, our courts do not recognize the biblical right to stone adulterers to death. I could name dozens of so-called bad “behaviours” taken straight out of the bible that are not against the law in any way.

          Being gay is not a criminal offence in Bermuda – in any way – and our own Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation.

          Unfortunately, there are those amongst us who would no doubt call for the biblical equivalent of “Sharia Law” if they could. There is no confusion in the Chief Justice’s ruling. He decided the case on its legal merits – not on a literal interpretation of the bible.

      • Hmmm says:

        Melvyn, Sandys 360…….Unreturned double payment., any insight?

        • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

          Shussssssshhhh- hes concentrating on preserving marriage!

          • hmmm says:

            I think they should tell the truth. To preserve marriage means they would welcome same sex marriage. What this group really is doing is discriminating against a minority.

            They are wholly aimed at preventing the minority from having equal rights.

            Only nasty and evil people would do such a thing. Shame on them.

            Marriage is a civil contract…Weddings are what churches do.

            • True Lies says:

              Exactly, if they really wanted to preserve marriage, they would focus their efforts on outlawing Divorce!

            • True Believer says:

              Life would be more peaceful if we let go of our “right” to be right.

        • cat says:

          are the Police investigating that?

        • Daylilly says:

          Hmmmm personal attacks. How old are you?…Shouldn’t you have learned to stop doing that when you were 5?

    • Unearthed says:

      +1 to preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. A man and a woman were designed to be together and to reproduce. A marriage celebrates and signifies that special union. People aren’t homophobic just because they want to preserve traditions and values.

      • Mike Hind says:

        People who think it’s ok to deny citizens of Bermuda equal rights and privileges based on their religion are, in fact, homophobic.
        People that think people were designed in any way are, in fact religious.

        How will marriage equality affect “traditional marriages in any way?

        • Just saying says:

          I think your asking the wrong question.A better question is what is “marriage equality”? And the arguments commonly used is in relation to race equality and gender equality (women’s rights) how the three are the same, which they are not. Every man should have the same opportunities job,education etc. because they have the same potential as they’re different colored counterparts. Women should have the same opportunities as men jobs, education etc. because they have the same potential that men do.

          Now a same sex couple does not have the same potential that a White, Black, Indian, Asian, Mixed heterosexual couple does. Ie. conception and birth without assistance. Assistance being adoption, sperm donors etc. So you can’t say that the two are equal.

          Now rights however everyone deserves. In which case we can have specific law to target those specific issues. Power of attorney, shared bank account, shared medical insurance etc.

          Just saying

          • ??? says:

            What about people that are infertile? Should they then have their rights withheld from them as well? And don’t say that there is adoption and fertility methods such as IVF as these are available to homosexual couples as well.

            • Just saying says:

              Of course without using adoption and IVF.
              Do you plan for the rule or the exception? Meaning the majority of heterosexual couples can. Everyone on Earth came to be, was born through a male and female, mom and dad.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Nope. Not even a little right.

            Procreation and “conception and birth without assistance” are not stipulations for marriage and the lack of ability to do so is not a restriction.
            Your argument is false.

            And the rights are exactly what we’re talking about.
            Why shouldn’t people be allowed to have them?
            We already have specific law that targets the issues. It’s a contract between two people called a marriage. Why shouldn’t we just change this to include new people who have traditionally been denied these rights?

            Now, to my question…

            How will marriage equality (i.e. changing the Matrimonial Clauses Act to remove that restriction… that’s what we’re talking about) affect “traditional marriages” in any way?

          • Common Sense says:

            I know a delighful elderly couple who both lost their first spouses and decided to marry each other when they were in their eighties. It is, of course, inconceivable they they will conceive! Conception is out of the questions either with or without “assistance” mentioned by “Just Saying”.

            Should this loving couple have been entitled to marry, and if so why can a gay couple not have exactly the same human rights.

            If this group wants to retain the state of marriage they should be trying to figure out how to reduce what I call “serial adultery” in Bermuda, and the very high number of women having babies out of wedlock. One thing for sure, they will not under any circumstances be suggesting any changes in law to deter adulterers, or what some religious folk might consider illegitimate births resulting so often in children being raised without a father.

        • Unearthed says:

          Whether you believe in evolution or creation, the point is a man and a woman are biologically designed to be together – period. A man/man and woman/woman were not designed to be together.

          • Mike Hind says:

            People weren’t designed. That’s religion, not science.
            Your initial clause doesn’t match up with the rest.

            Also, understanding evolution and believing in creationism aren’t comparable.

    • Goose says:

      1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness

      Leviticus 25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.

      Far more than love preached in the Bible. If anyone is opposing same sex marriage based on Scripture then surely they should support the concept of people being property and women being irrelevant outside of the bedroom or kitchen.

      • Daylilly says:

        Christophobic, anti-Christian dialogue won’t work in the many countries across the world that still won’t support marriage being redefined. Ever wonder why the whole entire world agreed on marriage….did they all get together thousands of years of go and have a marriage summit. No, it just made good sense. The decision wasn’t based on homophobia.

        • Mike Hind says:

          People pointing out your hypocrisy and bigotry isn’t “Christophobic”.

          Any chance of a real reason that gay folks shouldn’t be allowed to get married?

          You haven’t shown a single one yet.

    • Truth is killin' me... says:

      Two mothers can’t be a father…two fathers can’t be a mother!

      • JoCo says:

        Actually, factually that statement is incorrect. Humans have assigned specific ideals over the years, many of which do not hold true throughout the natural world.

        It is common in species for males to have nothing to do with raising their young, what we would refer to as being a father. Likewise, there are species where the females have nothing to do with raising the young they have produced, making them no mother, as we would use the word.

        What you’re referring to is being a parent. Not a mother or father. And actually, the evidence does not support the point you have made.

        • lowe says:

          We are not talking about other species. We are talking about human beings. We live in a much more sophisticated society than the species to which you are referring.

          A child should have a mother and father if possible.

          • Not so Safe says:

            All children and have a mother and father – whether or not either one or both are in the picture is a different matter.

          • JoCo says:

            Technically, no we don’t. There are species other than humans that have just as complex a social structure as ours. We just like to see ourselves as above the rest of the species on the planet.

            Furthermore, all children have a mother and father genetically. In talking about raising a child, some children have both a mother and father and it didn’t work out well for them. Likewise there are children who have two mothers or two fathers and life works out great for them. Similarly, the coin could fall on the other side for both of these situations.

            The common denominator is that the children have either a single parent or parents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation who love them unconditionally.

            What marriage does, is help to support and provide legal and financial stability for the couple as a couple and in the future as parents. As such, same sex couples should have the ability to marry. It makes much more sense that allowing it would help preserve marriage as opposed to fighting it. Saying they can’t because of personally held religious beliefs is discrimination. Also, using the line ‘this is how it has always been done’ is dangerous. Allowing same sex couples to marry, in no way affects other peoples opposite sex couple marriage or their raising of children.

          • Think outside the Bible... says:

            What an interesting idea you pose, that a child should have a mother and a father! Tell me, what is the church doing to rectify all the deadbeat parents who willingly choose not to be a part of their child’s life?? There are far more single parents with little to no support from the other parent on this tiny little island than there even are gay people trying to get married! What is this group doing to try to restore their idea of “a family” in these situations?

            • MPP says:

              Again, does concern about the redefinition of marriage = no concern about any other marriage/family issues, or any other issues in society?

              This group isn’t the church but the church is doing plenty to support families of all kinds, managing through a variety of relationship and financial issues.

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            If we did live in a sophisticated so iety, we would realize that the tradition gender filing in family values are in fact sexist in nature, often governed by ancient patriacal values. The role.of mother and father be one less critical provided that there is strong parental support and guidance. There are plenty of examples of people who have excelled in the face of a void in the mother/father paradigm. Your argument is out of date and has been shown obsolete in a sophisticated society.

      • Mike Hind says:


        Procreation isn’t a stipulation for marriage.

        • Daylilly says:

          Procreation isn’t a stipulation for marriage but it is often an intended consequence.

          • Mike Hind says:


            It’s not a restriction.

            Care to give an actual reason that gay folks shouldn’t be allowed to get married?

          • serengeti says:

            If it isn’t a stipulation, there goes one of the main purported objections to SSM.

      • Ha! says:

        And a single mother can’t be a father…a single father can’t be a mother.

        • Truth is killin' me... says:

          That’s why there’s so much hurt in kids from single parent families!

  2. Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

    Onward Christian soldiers, marching out to war!! I mean love, I mean war….forget it…

  3. HW says:

    Excellent. I’m encouraged by the initiatives to strengthen families and to talk with the LBGT community. I think so much more can be accomplished when we talk face to face. then and only then can we appreciate where each other are coming from- Preserve Marriage are approaching this from the right angle.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And yet, we can’t get an honest discussion or valid argument against same sex marriage out of you…

      Odd, that.

    • AgeBees says:

      HW – that is clearly NOT what they are saying. There is no interest in dialogue or compromise. It’s their way or nothing else.

  4. steva says:

    Referendum? it’s an important civic issue?
    How about it’s an important human rights issue!

    • Kyle Masters says:

      A referendum (or plebiscite)is not an unusual course of action for this particular issue. Several states in the US, as well as countries and territories in Europe have dealt with the issue of same sex marriage in similar terms (see Ireland and Slovenia as well as California, Washington and Maryland in the US).

      • blankman says:


        First, in the US it doesn’t matter what the states decide – the US Constitution overrules them and the Supreme Court has declared that any laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional and hence nul and void.

        I don’t know about Slovenia but the only reason that Ireland had a referendum was because marriage is defined in their constitution and the only way to change that was via referendum.

        But the fact is that rights should not be determined by majority opinion. That’s why they are called rights. At the risk of being repetitive, if the majority opinion had been allowed to rule women would never have been given the vote, mixed race marriages would still be illegal while slavery would be legal. And so forth.

        But we’re still waiting for a valid reason not to allow same sex marriage. To date no-one has presented one that isn’t based on a centuries old book of uncertain authorship.

        • HW says:

          We have, you just have seemingly chosen to ignore them.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Another lie.

            You have repeatedly ignored requests to show a valid argument and have never shown a single one.

            At least TRY to be honest! Please!

    • Daylilly says:

      Steva, all humans have rights, even the tiniest of humans and they should have the right to both mothers and fathers. Most of the people in the world including you had a mom and a dad. Legislation predicts and reflects the behavior and values of a society. Legislatively saying either parent is irrelevant is like telling little girls you are irrelevant as a mother and little boys you are irrelevant as a father.


      • Mike Hind says:

        This is a completely false argument.

        Marriage equality doesn’t say this, at all.
        This is a dishonest misrepresentation of the truth.

      • cole00cash says:

        Are you saying that we should pass legislation to force a man and a woman to marry if they have a child? Sounds like an interesting idea. Tell me more about this new initiative of yours.

        • Daylilly says:

          Too late….the “new initiative” your referring to is actually old… marriage incentives have been offered to encourage families to stay together for years in most societies. Until the recent demise of marriage with no fault divorce, people were legally encouraged to seek counseling and and had to jump through many hurdles before breaking covenant.

          The initiative to preserve marriage is not anti-anyone, it is pro-marriage.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Another lie.

            How do you live with yourself?

          • Zevon says:

            Absolute nonsense. Where you can’t win an argument you just make up lies.

      • blankman says:

        lilly, so you’re saying that we should ban single parent families? After all, if having two parents of the same sex is telling either parent that they are irrelevant imagine what message is being sent when a child only has one parent.

        • Daylilly says:

          No one is upholding single parenting as the ideal, especially single parents. There is no one lobbying to raise children alone. Nor are we legislatively saying that either parent is irrelevant or optional. That wasn’t a good argument.

          • blankman says:

            Then what’s your problem with same sex marriage? You seem to be arguing that kids are better off with two parents than one (or none) and a same-sex household provides that and, according to a recent study performed by the University of Melbourne kids raised by same sex parents actually fare better on almost all fronts than those raised by hetero parents. The only place the kids face a negative is the homophobic reactions of people around them towards their parents. And that’s hardly the parents’ fault.

          • Zevon says:

            But the fact is, right. Now, either parent IS optional. That is the caee now, and has always been the case. There have always been single parent families, for one reason or another.
            Your suggestion that every child must at a minimum have a mother and father is just unworkable, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

    • Connor says:

      no human is created without both a mother and a father, so clearly a fundamental human right is to have both a mother and a father. It is a civil issue because we are speaking about defenseless children and it is always a civil duty to defend the defenseless.

      • Mike Hind says:

        This is, quite simply, incorrect.

        There isn’t a human right to have a mother and father anywhere on the books.
        I defy you to show where it is,

        AND how does this affect children?

        • The Dark Knight Returns says:

          I respectfully disagree. In order to have a child the obvious must happen. Which. Means that there is a need for a mother and a father. The fact that they don’t stay together is a mute point. We are going to confuse our tender minds (children) into thinking it’s acceptable to like the same sex. The next generation will be lost and health care issues will rise as a result of this nonsense.

          • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

            it actually IS totally acceptable to love the same sex. You should be ashamed of yourself. I actually feel very sorry for any children you might have, if you teach them such intolerance! their tender minds would be better adjusted to the reral world by being exposed to life as it really is, instead of your narrow minded way!

            Also, how is the next generation “lost”? How will healthcare rise????

          • Mike Hind says:

            Why is it bad to accept that some people like other people, regardless of sex?

            And what health care issues? Any evidence to back up this claim?

            Or is this just more fearmongering without any basis in truth?

          • cole00cash says:

            Actually, having an intimate relationship outside of wedlock is a sin and having a child out of wedlock isn’t looked upon so nicely by the Christian faith. So if you truly believe in upholding Christians values then you should be talking about how women who become pregnant should be forced to get married to the man who knocked her up. They shouldn’t be allowed to get divorced either since getting married is essentially a punishment at this point.

            Furthermore, if a man has raped a woman then he must pay her father and marry the woman and never be divorced according to scripture. Why aren’t you fighting for that piece of scripture law in Deuteronomy to be upheld in present day?

            • blankman says:

              True – the Bible very specifically addresses divorce but says nothing about same-sex marriage.

          • aceboy says:

            ” The fact that they don’t stay together is a mute point.”

            lol. You should remain mute, professor.

          • Zevon says:

            There are, and have always been, children without either a father or mother. It happens now, and always has. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with SSM.

        • MPP says:

          Is there a fundamental right to marriage by any two people of any gender configuration somewhere on “the books”?

          I find your “how does this affect children?” questions flabbergasting.

          • Mike Hind says:

            a. Did I say there was?
            b. Here, or in the world? Because yes, there is. Keep up.
            c. Yes. It’s the matrimonial clauses act that says it has to be man and woman, not the marriage act.
            d. What’s flabbergasting? It’s interesting that you didn’t actually answer the question.
            Interesting and telling…

            • MPP says:

              OK, Mike.

              You defied the commenter to show you where there is a human right to a mother and father anywhere on the books as if human rights are dependent on there being a corresponding law.

              Human rights and legal rights are not the same thing. Human (fundamental) rights stand above legal rights, and are properly due each of us regardless of whether the law says so. The best structure of legal rights will reflect human rights closely.

              Your a. to c. show you have this mixed up.

              As for “d. What’s flabbergasting? It’s interesting that you didn’t actually answer the question.
              Interesting and telling…”

              I’m sorry but simply find it shocking when people argue against children needing mothers and fathers and/or that this fact has no bearing on what marriage is. This is properly basic.

              • Mike Hind says:

                You are amazing!

                Nothing you are saying has anything to do with reality.
                Your side keep saying that every child has a human right to a mother and father, but show NOTHING to back that up. It’s simply something you made up.
                What’s especially shocking is that your side makes this claim after saying – and citing the European Court – that marriage isn’t a human right!
                It’s shocking.

                And THEN! You completely rewrite what I’ve said, claiming I’m arguing against children needing a mother and father!

                You’re right, however, when you say that I’m arguing that procreation has no bearing on what marriage is… because it doesn’t.

                THAT is basic.

                What’s amazing is that you STILL didn’t answer the question!
                How will same sex marriage affect children?

              • blankman says:

                MPP,if your argument re children and the need for a mother and father is valid then we should be outlawing single parent families.

                But fact is that a recent study by the University of Melbourne concluded that the children of same-sex parents actually fare better than those of hetero parents. The only negative was the potential for the children to be on the receiving end of homophobic bullying because of who their parents are. But that’s not the fault of the parents.

                But of course you knew that because you actually did some basic research before you posted. Didn’t you??

        • Daylilly says:

          That’s precisely the point. Did you know that in the U.S. Laws protecting animals came before laws protecting children.. Adults often fail to remember the smallest voices among us. We do not human rights legislation to know that children are human too.

          • aceboy says:

            ” Did you know that in the U.S. Laws protecting animals came before laws protecting children..”

            perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on telling U.S. citizens what to do with their society.

            • Daylilly says:

              That’s a good point.. Let’s keep the U.S. and other countries mistakes out of Bermuda. Let Bermuda make decisions on its own. It’s hypocritical to say…..leave the U.S. out of this when studies from other countries are being used to fuel the debate in favor of SSM. Should those studies be left out of the discussion because they too are irrelevant to Bermuda.

              • blankman says:

                If the experience of other countries is irrelevant to Bermuda then any argument based on the Bible is equally inapplicable. After all, none of the Biblical stories is supposed to have happened here.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Nothing to do with the topic.

        • Daylilly says:

          Do you know how ridiculous that sounds to say we that children don’t have human rights because it’s not written in some book?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Do you know how ridiculous YOU sound, spreading lies?

          • Zevon says:

            Do you know how ridiculous it sounds to say that gay people don’t have human rights because it’s not written in some book?

      • Zevon says:

        If that’s a “fundamental human right”, why isn’t this group protesting about all the children born out of wedlock? Why aren’t you trying to impose your moral values on single parent families?

        • hmmm says:

          Its because they are discriminating. Plain and simple.

          Shameful people in that photograph. Disgusting hateful and nasty people the lot of them.

        • MPP says:

          This isn’t about what people want to do, you know. It’s about what the law encourages and enables people to do.

          “Protest” children being born out of wedlock? As a society, we can encourage people to aim for stable committed relationships before bringing people into the world.

          In fact, one way we do this is through… marriage laws.

          • Mike Hind says:

            And yet, having children, or, at least, being able to do so, is not a requirement for getting married.

            Therefore… What is your argument?

    • TheForce says:

      Every human has the right to love who they want, yet that does not mean that they are entitled to redefine marriage for the entire population.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Why not?

      • cole00cash says:

        You mean we shouldn’t have changed the law to allow people of colour to marry caucasians?

        • MPP says:

          Honest question: was that here or was that in the US?

          • brain drain says:

            Honest question: does it matter?

            • MPP says:

              Just wondering who “we” is.

              Because the US is nearly unique in trying to block interracial marriages. Some of us talk as if WE (global) all did it and now think better of it.

              The truth is that craziness never entered the minds of most people on the planet… including us here in Bermuda.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Incorrect. Blocks and restrictions on interracial marriage can be found all over the world.

                You really need to stop making stuff up and trying to pass it off as true.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Does that matter?

          • blankman says:

            Not sure about Bermuda. I know it was in the US – the case was Loving v Virginia in 1967 – the case went to the US Supreme Court in 1967.

            The Lovings were married in DC but when they returned home they were jailed for “unlawful cohabitation”. The judge in the case referenced the Bible as well:

            “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents…. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Judge Bazile sentenced the Lovings to a year in prison, to be suspended if the couple agreed to leave the state for the next 25 years.

            Needless to say the Supreme Court did not agree.

            As for those that say we should have a referendum it’s worth noting that at the time of the Loving v Virginia case less than 20% of the US population approved of mixed race marriages.

            • Daylilly says:

              Blankman, you said the judge referenced the Bible. Referencing the Bible or misquoting the Bible is not the same as quoting the Bible. Why is the same old Christophobic, Anti-Christian, we’re just like the blacks rhetoric being played like an old, broken, torn down victrola.

              If your argument has merit then stand on the merits of the argument, don’t ride the backs of former slaves to suit your purpose.

              • Mike Hind says:

                When will you show the merits of YOUR argument.
                Actually, when will you be actually showing your argument? You haven’t made one based on real stuff yet…

              • blankman says:

                If you’d read the Bible you’d realize that the judges statement was accurate.

              • Zevon says:

                The judge baeed his opinion on what had been the case for all of history up until then. He said there must be a reason why the races were historically apart, and he used that as the reason for the decision. He was wrong.
                You lot are trying the same thing. You’re just as bigoted and wrong as that judge.

      • blankman says:

        Force, how are they “redefining marriage for the entire population”? Is anyone telling you that you have to enter into a same-sex marriage?

        Fact is, the only way that allowing same-sex marriages would affect your marriage is if one of you is gay. Otherwise it can’t possibly affect you.

      • What? says:

        If same-sex couples are allowed to marry please explain how this will redifine your personal current or future marriage? You will still be able to marry the person of your choice. You will still be able to opt for a religious or civil ceremony. In what way will this so called redefinition affect your life in anyway?

      • blankman says:

        TheFarce – how are they redefining marriage for the entire population? Are they redefining your marriage? This won’t affect you in the least.

  5. Citmin says:

    I think its good to have dialogue of this as mature adults. The slamming of fellow citizens online needs to stop. Everyone has a right to their own view without disrespecting each other.

    • Mike Hind says:

      It’s not about the views. It’s about the denial of rights and privileges to a group of our fellow citizens.

      • Jus Wonderin' says:

        Yeah you said that before Mike, but we’re still all entitled to our own opinions bottom line!

        • Mike Hind says:

          And I’ve said before that you are entitled to those opinions. I’ve never said you aren’t.
          What I, and others, have a problem with is the denial of rights to our fellow citizens,

          Get it? I don’t know how to be clearer…

          • MPP says:

            “Marriage” to whomever you want isn’t a right.

            We have to draw the line as to what we’ll allow and what we won’t, as a people. Any where you draw the line, you can say that people on the other side are being “denied rights”, but it’s only accurate if what you’re talking about is a “right” in the first place.

            Campaigning for what you want by calling it a “right” sounds better but isn’t the truth.

            • Mike Hind says:

              More misrepresentation.
              There are hundreds of rights and privileges granted to married people that are currently denied to same sex couples.
              Please stop rewriting what I said.

              It’s weird that you don’t seem to understand this. Intentional incomprehension?

              • Just saying says:

                Then target those rights and privileges rather than the definition of marriage. Its like buying a new car (marriage) if in your current car the seats are ratty and uncomfortable (privileges that same sex couples want) . You don’t go and buy a new car/ change the definition of marriage.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  The rights are the marriage! How is this hard? The rights that make up the marriage are what’s being targeted. That’s what we’re talking about.

                  To extend your analogy, it’s more like someone wanting to bring in the first automatic and you lot are saying “Cars have gears that the driver has to change. You’re redefining the meaning of the word “car”!”

                • Zevon says:

                  The rights include the right to be recognised as being married. That is as important to gay people as it is to you and me.

                  You don’t pick out some mixed-sex couples and say “they’re not really married, it’s just a civil union”. This is the same thing. It’s called equality.

        • blankman says:

          Wonderin’ – true. You are entitled to your own opinions. But that doesn’t mean you’re right. Just that you have an opinion.

      • TheForce says:

        Actually this matter is very much about the views. For example, even though the current law defines marriage between a man and a woman, those whose views support the law are being lambasted simply for having strong beliefs. If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, those who do not support it will ultimately lose the ability to have their own views on traditional marriage. Everyone has the right to love whom they please, but no one person has the right to redefine marriage for the entire population.

        • Mike Hind says:

          A coup,e of things…

          Not even remotely what I said, please stop twisting my words.

          If marriage is redefined, those opposed to it will absolutely be allowed to have their views, just like those who oppose divorce are allowed to have their views on that and those who oppose eating pork or beef still have the ability to have their own views on that. What they won’t have the ability to do is force other people to share those views.

          Surely you agree that forcing people to obey the rules of someone else’s religion is wrong… No?

          • Bermie says:

            You make a good point which made me think of something. Because a lot of these people appear to be SDA, why are they not up in arms about the fact our supermarkets sell pork? Are they not guilty of ‘redefining’ nutrition?

            Simply put, nobody is denying these people anything by allowing SSM. They, however, wish to deny same sex couples the basic right to legitimize their relationship and enjoy the same associated rights and privileges that we can take for granted.

            Stopping them getting married will not stop same sex couples from loving or having families. Opposing SSM though stops me thinking of these people as rational or decent. Just shocked when I recognized some of the people in the photograph. They are young enough and educated enough to know better than to subscribe to such bigotry.

            • Mike Hind says:

              I THiNK they’re trying to say that they’ll lose their right to discriminate.

              Of course, none of them will come out and admit that…

        • Mike Hind says:

          And, finally, it’s not “one person”, it’s many.

          And redefining marriage will affect no one except those who will then be allowed to marry.

          • Verly says:

            That’s the thing that boggles my mind. Just as whatever happens in a heterosexual marriage doesn’t affect mine, the same goes for a same sex marriage. What happens in other people’s marriage is totally none of my business. That’s like saying if a man is cheating on his wife, or she’s a husband beater, somehow makes my marriage unstable. It really makes me wonder if these people are completely sane.

          • MPP says:

            Wrong, Mike.

            What we call “marriage” affects all of us. These are the things that order our whole society.

            • Mike Hind says:

              You keep saying that but never say how. Why is that?

            • hmmm says:

              I’d like to know how it affects the order of society too.

              You don’t get married to the same sex unless you are gay. So if you are not gay, how does it affect you?

          • Daylilly says:

            Mike, please tell me who sold you the lie that redefining marriage only affects the potential SSM couples.I have some land at the bottom of the Atlantic I want them to sell for me.

            • Mike Hind says:

              And yet, you won’t say who else it will affect!

              You’ve said it’ll change religion, then refused to explain how. You’ve said it’ll change education, but refused to explain how.
              You’ve repeatedly refused and ignored any request to elaborate or even engage in honest discussion, instead choosing to propagate lie after lie.

              The burden of proof is on you and folks like you who make the claim that it will affect others.

              Why is it that you continually refuse to show how it will?
              Why do you refuse to give a single valid argument against SSM?

              So, I’ll ask again: how will SSM affect ANYONE else?

      • The Dark Knight Returns says:

        I respectfully disagree.

        • Mike Hind says:

          About what? That people are complaining about people views and NOT because people are being denied rights and privileges?

          Seriously? Do you honestly think that this is about opposing views and NOT about the rights and privileges?

          I’m respectfully asking…

    • Onion says:

      Yes, they can have their view. We have problems when they want to use the law to impose their view on others who don’t share that view.

      • Daylilly says:

        Changing the definition of marriage is still imposing one groups view over another. SSM proponents want to change the agenda to include 2 consenting adults. Polygamists and other people are just as passionate about their view on marriage and they too want to be included in redefining marriage. Pretty soon we will have reinvented so many definitions of marriage that none of the definitions nor marriage will be relevant at all.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Polygamy is an entirely different conversation as no one is seriously asking for that.

          And, “redefining marriage” to include more consenting adults will make marriage MORE relevant to folks, not less.

          • Daylilly says:

            The Friday December 18th Dr. Phil show had some people on it who were very much in love and consenting and demanding their rights to marry whom they please, whether it was 2,3,4 and so on. The arguments for polygamy were exactly the same as the arguments for SSM.

            The polygamist were also saying that they were being discriminated against. The reality is that laws discriminate based on the purpose and intent of the law. In the end, there WILL be a definition of marriage, if we keep trying to change the definition to include everyone, marriage will lose purpose and meaning. We will all just have contractual relationships.

            • Mike Hind says:

              And yet, it’s an entirely different topic, one that you are using to deflect from the fact that you have never actually shown a valid, honest argument against SSM, nor answered many, many simple questions about your position and/or the easily provably incorrect lies that you continue to post.

              And, changing the definition to include more people will, BY DEFINITION, increase the meanin of the word, not lessen it. How can it possibly do otherwise?

      • HW says:

        And yet this is exactly what the supporters of SSM are trying to do

        • Mike Hind says:

          Another mistruth.

          SSM supporters are trying to end this.

          No one else will be affected by a change to the matrimonial clauses act.

      • TheForce says:

        It is not a matter of using the law, rather than maintaining it. It was put in place with the good intention of promoting strong families. : )

        • Mike Hind says:

          Evidence of this claim?

          • MPP says:

            Argue against the arguments, Mike.

            Male-female marriage has been agreed across humanity, across times, ages, cultures, nationalities, races, and faiths.

            Was that all just bigotry?

            Argue against how marriage, as the ground for families, makes sense (1) biologically, (2) socially and (3) on common sense grounds.

            Argue against how fatherlessness and broken homes have wreaked havoc in our nation and how both a father and mother are important to children, and neither are simply “optional” or “fashionable”.

            Argue against how SSM therefore places the desires of adults above the needs of children, whereas male-female marriage appropriately values both and strengthens the family.

            BTW – “that’s been debunked 6 billion times!” isn’t an argument.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Asking for evidence isn’t arguing against the arguments? Seriously?

              But to address your points:

              It has been, but not in every case. There are ample examples of same sex marriages throughout the ages and cultures. To pretend there isn’t is ignorant of the subject, perhaps willfully, as this has been explained many, many times.

              Yes, refusing rights to same sex couples IS bigotry.

              Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage, therefore your “basis for making sense biologically… Etc” argument is false and irrelevant.

              And it HAS been debunked “6 million times (who are you quoting there?)”. The debunking IS the argument against it. That’s how it works! I don’t think you actually read the parts where people debunk your claims. It seems you just read the parts where they point out that they’ve done it.
              I mean, you keep pushing this “it’s about the kids” thing, yet never actually explain how same sex marriage will affect children.
              Your whole argument is basically “same sex couples can’t have kids together, so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married because their kids won’t have a mother and father” and it’s a little bit insane, frankly.

              You’re also comparing single parents to a couple, which is bizarre, too.

              Your arguments are false and I’ve explained to you a bunch of times why they are.
              You’ve never responded after that point and NEVER answered simple questions.

              I assume this’ll happen again here.

              • MPP says:

                You misrepresent my argument.

                For what it’s worth, if my argument was, as you put it “same sex couples can’t have kids together, so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married because their kids won’t have a mother and father”, it would be insane, as you put it.

                But for the amount of times we’ve been over this, I’m surprised you still put it that way.

                I’ll put this way.

                1. Marriage is an ideal.

                2. All marriages in a society must be equal.

                2. By equal, I mean that all marriages must be equipped to perform all of marriage’s essential public functions.

                3. Marriage has several essential public functions.

                4. An important ONE of the essential public functions of marriage is to establish the foundation of families for the best raising of children.

                5. All children are born in need of the unique, complementary gifts of mothers and fathers.

                6. Children are best cared for when mother and father are together in a low-conflict union. This is the ideal to which marriage points, in this respect.

                6. To call same-sex unions “marriages” tells a lie about their ability to perform at least ONE critical function of marriage for our society.

                7. “Rights of children” comes into play because we know that some percentage of SSM’s will pursue and raise children in our society.

                8. “Rights of children” also comes into play because when we call same sex unions “marriages” we as a society say that children DO NOT essentially need mothers and fathers; that they are optional and subordinate to what adults want.

                9. Marriage should not be redefined to include same sex couples.

                • serengeti says:

                  This is just a list of your opinions.
                  By the way, it’s not a very good list. You have two number 2′s and two number 6′s. Obviously you spent no time or thought on this at all. Yet you expect it to be treated as a charter that everyone else must live by.

                  There are plenty of unhappy children with single and married parents. Trying to hang your whole argument on how ‘bad it would be for kids’ is rich, coming from a side who also use the argument that there is no point having marriage unless you have children.
                  So if a SSC have or adopt a child, you think that’s bad. Why? Why is having two women as your parents any worse than having a single mother look after you, for example?

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Number four is false and invalidates the rest of your argument, which is, in fact, “gay people can’t have kids, so it’s not a marriage.” Procreation is not a stipulation nor a restriction for marriage. Therefore your entire post is false. And occasionally gibberish.

                  You are also saying that you would rather orphans and abandoned children to be left in foster care and orphanages than with stable, loving families, simply because, according to you and with no actual basis, it is not “ideal”.

                  Even if we take it as fact, it’s only not ideal in one, single aspect. There are myriad other factors that make an ideal situation for child raising and not one of them is a stipulation for marriage. Neither is the ability to have kids.

                  I know you’ll keep pushing this as an excuse, but it simply isn’t a reason to oppose letting people get married, for the reasons mentioned.

                  Do you have another?

                  • MPP says:

                    I’m not saying what you said about orphans. Not remotely. Orphans would be better in most situations over being in the hands of the state.

                    Is that how we define what a marriage is?

                    BTW, people aren’t buying your “the institution of marriage has nothing to do with children” thing. It’s too common sense.

                    Dislike it, rail against it, and call it invalid if you like but, again, biology (which you never argue against for good reason), social science and common sense are loudly drowning you out.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Why is it ok for you to misrepresent, though?

                      I never said that.

                      What I have said, and you’ve ignored, is that procreation is not a stipulation for nor a restriction against marriage.

                      Surely you don’t disagree with that. Or do you? Are you saying that the ability to procreate IS a stipulation for marriage? Because you’d be incorrect… Or would have to show where it is, legally.

                      I’m not “calling it invalid”, I explain why it IS invalid.
                      Biology has nothing to do with it, as explained. That’s why I don’t argue against biology!
                      Your “social science” argument has been shown to be wrong time and again.
                      And your “common sense” is based on falsehoods, misinformation and lies, as has been explained, and backed up! time and again.

                      What’s amazing is that you never actually explain your position. You dance around it, you doublespeak, you move goalposts, but never come out and say it, nor do you answer simple questions. Why is that?

                      Surely, if your position is strong and valid, it can stand up to scrutiny.
                      Why don’t you ever defend it honestly?
                      Why do you resort to lies and evasion?

                      Why don’t you ever answer simple questions?

            • Mike Hind says:

              Also, what arguments?

              I haven’t seen any that make any sense.

              Would you care to provide an actual, valid argument against allowing people of the same sex to get married?
              Keeping in mind that procreation isn’t a stipulation for marriage, of course…

            • blankman says:

              MPP,as Mike points out the “needs of the children” argument falls flat since you’ve never explained why same sex marriage harms children.

              For the record, a recent study by the University of Melbourne concluded that children of same-sex couples actually fared better than children of hetero couples. The only negative was that those children were at risk of homophobic bullying because of who their parents were – and that problem has nothing to do with the parents and is purely the responsibility of the people doing the bullying.

              • Daylilly says:

                A “recent” study won’t debunk hundreds of years of studies and thousands of years of sociological development. We all know that fact finding is a business and you can buy a study to say just about anything. Thousands of years of history and an entire world of evidence can’t be debunked by “recent” studies.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Yes. It can. That’s how science works!
                  When new data comes in, theories and views change.

                  How do you not know this?

                • aceboy says:

                  ” Thousands of years of history and an entire world of evidence can’t be debunked by “recent” studies.”

                  You still think the earth is flat, don’t you.

                  • serengeti says:

                    Yep, the earth is the centre of the universe as well. That new-fangled “fact finding” about “gravity” can’t debunk centuries of “evidence”.

        • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

          Strong families like the ones in Bermuda? Do you know the statistics for domestic violence against in Bermuda are way over global average? How do you feel about that? Are these the kind of strong families you want to see more of?

    • What?? says:

      This “right to their own views argument” is getting old. Of course they have a right to their own opinions and the right to express them. Read the comments. They are expressing them over and over. No one is stopping them. They have, however, NO right to have those views go unchallenged especially since what they are REALLY after is to have those views translated to legal discrimination.

  6. Mike Hind says:

    Here we go again.

    And still no actual valid reasons to oppose marriage equality in law…

    • Mike, There is no such thing as same Sex Marriage.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Mr. Smith,

        It’s odd that you pop up, talking about something I didn’t say.

        You keep doing this, popping in and then running away when I ask simple questions. Why is that?
        I thought we were trying to have honest dialogue about this subject.
        Why do you never do that?

        And, if you look, there absolutely IS such a thing as Same Sex Marriage. Just saying that there isn’t doesn’t make it true. That’s not how reality works.

        • Hi Mike, Sorry to have stepped away from the computer. Same sex marriage is a new invention. It does not work in the natural world.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Not that you’ll answer, but…

            The natural world? Care to elaborate on what this means?

            Because MARRIAGE is a new invention that doesn’t EXIST in the natural world.

          • serengeti says:

            How many weddings have you seen in the ‘natural world’?

          • blankman says:

            Last time I looked Adam and Eve were never married.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Annnnd he’s gone again.

      • aceboy says:

        “Mike, There is no such thing as same Sex Marriage.”

        Sure there is, google it, you’ll see that many first world countries have it.

  7. MPP says:

    Love. Dialog. Let’s explore what’s best for everyone in our society.

  8. Oops says:

    I hope and pray that every one of them end up with a gay child so they will see how horrible they are treating humans. Why do you care about other people’s business? Sincerely a straight person who believes in human rights.

  9. Zevon says:

    Why is it called “Preserve Marriage”? Wouldn’t a more accurate name be ” Prevent Marriage”?

    • bdaboy says:

      “Why is it called “Preserve Marriage”? Wouldn’t a more accurate name be ” Prevent Marriage”?”

      Or just plain old discrimination.
      I wonder if they’re going to rally against divorce and unwed mothers as well?

      • MPP says:

        If there’s a movement to call an unwed mother somehow someone in a “marriage”, I’m sure there will be opposition.

        If there’s a movement saying that divorced people are still in a marriage, there would be opposition.

        This is about what a “marriage” is or isn’t.

        • serengeti says:

          How can an organisation that calls itself “preserve marriage” not be concerned about people who get divorced? And how can it not be concerned about people who fail to get married prior to having children?
          I thought you lot liked marriage. It turns out you have no interest in ‘preserving’ it at all.

          • aceboy says:

            “I thought you lot liked marriage. It turns out you have no interest in ‘preserving’ it at all.”

            They just want to preserve discrimination.

          • HW says:

            How can you make that assumption? The issue of the day is SSM so naturally that is what is making headlines and is what we’re discussing. SSM proponents wants to redefine marriage so as a democratic society, people are allowed to voice their position as to why they don’t think that will be good for society as a whole.

            As you mentioned divorce and how many single parent homes there are, would you say those are good or bad things? I know I’m very concerned about those issues and many others are also. We’re allowed and able to be concerned with more than 1 issue at a time, are we not?

            how can you assume they’re doing nothing and have no concern for divorces and single parent homes? a GREAT DEAL is being done in these areas but this proposed change to the law is the issue before us right now.

            we’ve seen the brokenness to the family structure that divorce and fatherless homes does- why would we think SSM will be any different? redefining marriage in a way that denies the ideal situation for family structure does no good for society.

            • Mike Hind says:

              “…people are allowed to voice their position as to why they don’t think that will be good for society as a whole.”

              Still waiting for you to actually do this.

            • blankman says:

              HW, so tell us why it will be bad for society. Not a quote from someone’s holy book but a legitimate reason.

            • serengeti says:

              “we’ve seen the brokenness to the family structure that divorce and fatherless homes does- why would we think SSM will be any different”?

              If SSM is no different, why are you against it? Isn’t it preferable that more people have the chance to marry? Why would SSM be ‘bad for society as a whole’? I can’t think of a single reason why it would adversely affect society, and your side hasn’t made that argument effectively at all.

              You’re the ones that say you want to ‘preserve marriage’, but you’re doing nothing to preserve marriages at all. You’re just preventing marriages.

          • MPP says:

            How does concern that marriage not be redefined = no concern about divorce or no concern about children outside of wedlock and the attendant issues in those cases?

    • Connor says:

      It is not preventing marriage because marriage is only between a man and a woman. It has been so since the beginning of the word itself

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope. Not true. Not even a little bit.

      • Zevon says:

        Nah. They’re marriage preventers.

      • aceboy says:

        “It is not preventing marriage because marriage is only between a man and a woman. It has been so since the beginning of the word itself”

        Not even close to accurate, weak.

      • blankman says:

        Connor, you really should do some research. Fact is that at one time both the Catholic and Orthodox churches had same sex marriage liturgies on the books (actually for centuries).

    • TheForce says:

      Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples undermines marriage as an institution thus leading to a weaker community and society. Marriage is not merely about the romantic desires of adults, but about creating stable families, where children can enjoy the right to have both a mother and father. : )

      • Mike Hind says:

        Not true at all.

        Procreation isn’t a stipulation for marriage. Therefore your entire premise is based on a fallacy.

      • Zevon says:

        How would it “undermine marriage”. It would have no effect at all on other married couples.

        If anyone “undermines marriage”, it’s the people who have children while still single. Why aren’t these people trying to control their lives?

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        Strong families like the ones in Bermuda? Do you know the statistics for domestic violence against in Bermuda are way over global average? How do you feel about that? Are these the kind of strong families you want to see more of

    • No. It is correct, ” Preserve Marriage.” Same Sex Marriage is not marriage. It’s something, but not marriage.

      • Mike Hind says:

        I think, if you look, where same sex marriages are legal, they ARE actually marriages.

        You are incorrect. Again.

        • Involved says:

          Why not just call it something else? Everyone is getting hot and bothered just over the word ‘marriage’. Just call it a union or name it something similar but not marriage. It will have the same benefits as marriage but it will have a different name. So this nonsense can stop, and before you call me a idiot or w.e. this does affect me.

          • Mike Hind says:

            I don’t do that.

            Why should we have to change the name of it?

          • blankman says:

            How can it affect you? The only way it can affect you is if you or your spouse is gay.

            As for “calling it something else” that’s just another way of saying that you want to prevent a different group of people from having the same privileges that you already enjoy. In other words “Separate but equal is not equal”.

          • True Lies says:

            For the same reason that we didn’t call it ‘something else’ when interracial marriage was legalized.

  10. Ya fullish says:

    The funny thing is statistically 50% of those marriages will fail. Food for thought.

    • That’s just a fact of life . Marriage is still between one man and one woman .

      • Mike Hind says:

        You do realize that your argument is “we shouldn’t change the law because it’s the law”, right?

        • MPP says:

          That depends of if you think the law “creates” marriage or “recognizes” marriage as a concept that pre-existed the law.

          Marriage and family pre-existed the law. Good lawmaking recognizes what marriage already is.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Not true.

            This is simply untrue.

            Why do you keep spreading lies?

            Marriage is about rights and the joining of two (or, traditionally, sometimes more) people legally, granting them rights and privileges.

            No one is stopping the religious side of it from happening or affecting that side at all.
            But the legal side should be in no way affected by your religion, any more than it should be anyone else’s. These rights and privileges should not be denied to other people because your personal choice of religion says it’s wrong.

            • The Truth says:

              I have a question, Mike:

              If those same sex couples were provided, under law, the rights and privileges of any couple married under Bermudian law BUT it was not defined in law as a marriage, would you accept that as fair?


              • Mike Hind says:

                But why? What possible reason could there be to do this?

              • blankman says:

                Truth – short answer “NO”.

                Separate but equal is not equal.

              • True Lies says:

                Would it be fair if we only allowed Christians to be married, and all people of other faiths/no faith were provided the same rights and privileges but not allowed to call it marriage?

            • ??? says:

              I agree! If a church wants to make a policy to diasallow marriages to happen in their church, that’s a different story. But to disallow two people to have a civil (i.e. non-religious) ceremony just doesn’t make sense.

              • blankman says:

                The Marriage Act already makes it clear that no church has to marry anyone if doing so would violate their beliefs.

                For the record, the major Christian denominations are not in agreement on this topic. Official positions range from full acceptance thru leaving it up to the individual pastor/congregation to no way.

      • Zevon says:

        A group called “preserve marriage” should be interested in preventing divorces. Shouldn’t they be imposing their moral values over divorced people as well, if they want to “preserve marriage”?

    • TheForce says:

      Preserve Marriage is looking to promote healthy, strong marriages between men and women. This includes rebuilding and restoring marriages rather than redefining it. : )

      • Mike Hind says:

        More untruth.

        They are simply looking to promote the denial of equal rights to a group of our fellow citizens.

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        Strong families like the ones in Bermuda? Do you know the statistics for domestic violence against in Bermuda are way over global average? How do you feel about that? Are these the kind of strong families you want to see more of

      • blankman says:

        Force, please show us where Prevent Marriage is doing anything other than attempting to discriminate against an already marginalized group of people.

  11. No Need says:

    1. You are NOT serving me a person of Bermuda
    2. What you believe may NOT be what I believe
    3. I would rather a referendum on why we need narrow minded persons such as your self serving selves
    4. I do not believe your petition numbers 1 iota. Have you legitimized your numbers in ANY way??
    5. I am neither gay nor lesbian but happily married to my wife with 2 children
    6. I do believe they have as much rights as we do. Also show/tell of ONE instance of problems with raising children in their environment as opposed to us so called families that are in the news constantly.

    • blankman says:

      Regarding your point (6) – the University of Melbourne recently released a study showing that children of same sex parents actually fared better than those of hetero parents.

      • No Need says:

        they obviously didn’t look at Bermuda as a demographic area. just look at the state of our parenting or should I say single parents

  12. Rich says:

    Why are these people so agitated about this issue? I cannot understand why people for whom this issue will have no bearing personally are able to summon up so much energy in opposition, especially considering the plethora of other real evils that exist in the world today.

    • Daylilly says:

      Support for everyone in society has always been a mandate for the Christian community. The 150 year old Salvation Army helps feed and clothe the homeless in Bermuda. Many Christian Counselors are underpaid or not paid at all for marriage and family counseling and addiction counseling. Hundreds of local families have food, bedding and gifts because of the Christian community. Christians have role modeled charity for generations. How can you say that the Christian community is cherry picking issues when they are addressing all of the issues.

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        The Salvation army has long been known as a homophobic institution. Together my colleagues and I have withdrawn our annual xmas support for this homophobic institution and given to better, brighter more forward thinking charities, who are inclusive, and treat all humans as humans.

      • blankman says:

        lilly, I wouldn’t refer to this group (i.e., Prevent Marriage) as the “Christian Community”. They’re a single issue body whose entire focus is on denying rights (actually a specific right) to an already marginalized group of people. People who happen to be different from them.

        And I have no idea why you dragged the Sally Ann into this – they’re not representative of the broader Christian community either And as has already been pointed out they are also extremely homophobic so you can hardly claim that they are supporting “everyone in society”. [Your comment re Christian Counsellors being underpaid has nothing to do with the discussion and has nothing to do with whether or not they are serving the community.]

        As for the Christian community in general, the position of the major churches varies a lot. At one extreme there are churches that will happily perform same-sex marriages. There are others where the church leaves it up to the individual pastor or congregation. And then there are those that say “no way Jose”.

        • Daylilly says:

          My response was to an earlier comment that said the church needs to address other community issues, like the homeless, divorce, single parents and fatherless children. It was to point out that the church has role modeled charity for generations and will continue to do this for future generations,

          • Zevon says:

            I thought you lot were denying that the church had anything to do with this group.
            Changed your mind?

    • HW says:

      First off, I don’t think agitated is the right word. Concerned is the term I would use. You’re assigning emotions to people who you’ve not met with or talked to which can cause you to totally miss what they’re saying regarding the issue.

      2nd- absolutely, there are a whole host of other issues and evils in the world. Have we decided to stop being concerned about particular ones while others are completely solved? Clearly not. It is possible to care about more than 1 issue at a time. The supporters of SSM could be accused of the same, could they not? With all that’s wrong with the world, one could ask why they’re worrying about this IF you were to follow your logic. (Which I do not)

      SSM is the issue before us at this moment and that is why people are sharing their concerns and viewpoints. Surely you’re not suggesting people should not be allowed to share differing opinions and have a voice in a matter that ultimately impacts us all…

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        Nobody is suggesting you shouldnt have an opinion.

        I for one, heard ones opinion loud and clear at the berkley meetings, when she told gay Bermudians to leave the island, to go away, that they are not wanted her, and when she muttered slurs under her breath. Some christian. These are the kinsd of people who make this campaign joke-worthy. Unfortunatly, until this group is weeded out of all the adulterers, divorcees, closet gays and just plain homophobes like Semen, they will NEVER be taken seriously.

        Oh and I suggest they might publish the names on that petition, because until they do that too is clouded in hilarity!

        • Daylilly says:

          At one of the meetings, people for SSM were holding up signs during anyone’s turn who disagreed with them and also blasting slurs. If slurs and disrespect are wrong it should not be wrong just for the Christian. It should be wrong for any one to mistreat another.

          • Semenologist says:

            daylilly, I hope you understand how your last sentence comes across.

            the pastor i was referring to said OUT LOUD that “HOMOS” (amongst other things….) should leave the island because they are not welcome here. That is different than holding up a sign. Her entire congregation should be ashamed of her behaviour, calling herself a woman of god.

            (Side note- does it say in her precious bookk that women should NOT preach? I believe it does…)

            Your statement that “It should be wrong for any one to mistreat another” in relation to withholding the right to marry for homosexuals is another fantastic incidence of ignorance. you and the rest of the people who are working towards continually denying this right are doing EXACTLY what you say we, as a race, shouldnt do to each other.

            I hope the Xmas period (which i dont celebrate, and Christians in general shouldnt because it is also not a christian holiday) gives you time to climb down from your ivory tower, get down off your high horse and consider that homosexuals are people too.

    • Connor says:

      Marriage is an issue that effects all people in a society equally. The essential aspect of marriage is being between a man and woman because it is an institution that positively effects society the way no other relationship can. Marriage is essential for a society as a way of assuring that all children have a mother and father.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope. Not true.

      • Zevon says:

        That’s just nonsense. In Bermuda large numbers of kids do not have a father. They have no proper family. They have a mother and a granny, maybe, and that’s it. And three or four siblings. No father. That is a much greater threat to our society, yet no one says a thing about it.

        • MPP says:

          People talk about this all the time.

          And the kids without fathers need them. Marriage pulls the whole family together.

          • Mike Hind says:

            That’s why people are trying to get married.
            Why is it that you’re trying to stop them from doing it?

          • Zevon says:

            People don’t “talk about this all the time”. It’s hardly ever brought up, actually. Nothing like as much as SSM, although allowing SSM would actually improve society.

  13. Tom Cooke says:

    Maybe they can also help all single parent houses with multiple children from multiple father’s. . Help them…
    And don’t even think bout banging on my door pushing your agenda…

    • HW says:

      Actually, they already DO a great deal of that. Since this issue is of great concern to you, it would be awesome if you joined in. And I mean that with all sincerity. We have a country full of broken homes and fatherless children who need everyone to get involved in their lives.

      Upholding the values of marriage benefit us all.

      • Zevon says:

        So why spend energy preventing marriage? It’s a waste of time. Bdo something useful.

  14. Ian Millen says:

    The only thing I need to ask is is it so wrong if two people love each other and want to commit to a monogamous relationship and share a good life with each other and both contribute to the society in which they live … Where is the harm?

    • HW says:

      That can be done without redefining marriage

    • Connor says:

      Nothing has been said against what you have asked. We are only addressing the issue of the definition of marriage. All of what you ask can be done without altering the true definition of marriage, Your’s is a different issue

    • Mike Hind says:

      Connor and HW, why are you so against the redefinition of marriage?

      Why shouldn’t we redefine it to make it more fair to our fellow citizens?

  15. Lois Frederick says:

    The courts have and will make decisions that protect the rights of all citizens. What I think will happen next is that a same sex marriage or union performed elsewhere will be recognized here and the couple will will be entitled to equal rights as with other couples. Because of that marriage of Same sex couples locally will not be such a pressing issue and won’t happen for a while. In time as people realize this issue has no real bearing on their lives and as we as a society become more tolerant it will happen. I liked the overall sentiment expressed in the recent meeting, a reluctant acceptance that this is inevitable. Even they realize the winds of change are upon us.They are correct it is.

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

    NO to Marriage…YES to Civil Union…Case closed no more need for unwarranted dialog…differences in opinions will only incubate hostility…Stop trying to take a Christian observance and turn it into an immoral unethical abomination…take your Civil Union and give thanks…do what you do best…leave the Christian faith alone and follow your own leader…and while you non believers are at it I hope you’re not celebrating the birth of Christ…

    • Legalgal says:

      Marriage is a civil contract.

    • Conor says:

      There are many different denominations of christianity, some of which embrace same-sex marriage. More over, marriage is a recognized union in most faiths and can have secular personal meaning as well. Requiring someone to label their union differently because they are gay is discrimination.

      Marriage does not belong to the denominations of Christianity that do not accept same-sex couples, therefore, discriminating against gay couples on the grounds that these denominations of christianity do not not accept same-sex marriage is invalid.

    • Anbu says:

      Im celebrating santa clause mate. And im pretty sure people have been getting married since long before god/jesus were even thought of. Still dont understand what the big deal is though. How can your faith lay claim to the word marraige? You act like christianity created it. Seems pretty arrogant to me. They wanna be married then let them. Isnt fair any other way round. We dont live in the fifties anymore guys, altho 90% of our population act like we do. Peeps need to chill. Tis the season afterall

    • bdaboy says:

      “Stop trying to take a Christian observance and turn it into an immoral unethical abomination”

      Here we go again with the ignorance. Educate yourself. Marriage has nothing to do with religion unless you want to include religion in your marriage.
      Are you against atheists who are married? What about marriage of non Christians?
      Stop pushing your christian agenda on to others.

      • Daylilly says:

        Speaking of atheists. There are other countries that won’t support SSM like communist China & Russia, you certainly can’t blame the Bible or religion for that.

    • Pamela L says:

      In response to your last sentence, I support same sex marriage and yes, I am celebrating the holiday. You know the one I mean, the one that was started by the pagans and approriated by the christians in order to coerce the pagans into switching religions. Talk about immoral and unethical. Oh, and marriage existed before religion co-opted it so maybe it’s you that needs to stop trying to claim something that you have no right too.

    • Mike Hind says:

      I am not a Christian. Do I have to stop calling my marriage a marriage.

      Oh, wait. Marriage isn’t a Christian observance, necessarily.

      Therefore, your argument is false.

    • blankman says:

      Keepin it real – Marriage long predates Christianity. In fact the church didn’t get involved at all until the 12th century (and then only to post bans so everyone knew about it). Prior to that all a couple did was declare they were married – no ceremony, no witnesses, nothing. And it wasn’t until centuries later that the church decided that marriage was some sort of sacrament.

    • What?? says:

      A Christian observance? So Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, can’t get married? So you believe that marriage belongs to the less than one third of the world’s population that identifies as Christian?

    • Semenologist says:

      I actually hope you are not celebrating the christmas period either, as it is not a Christian holiday. hypocrisy astounds.

  17. wondering says:

    and does Pastor Gary and his group have a movement to address divorced people or adulterous people or “sinners” in general…….seems that cherry picking (similiar to gerrymandering/hypocrisy)is rife in the Christian community

    • wondering says:

      should read “Pastor Gary et al……”

      • wondering says:

        QUOTE – Mr. Hall stated, “In the coming weeks, Preserve Marriage Bermuda will be rolling out some key initiatives designed to strengthen marriages and families within Bermuda and informing the community of the importance of marriage for everyone in society at large, all of which will be done in an engaging and loving way while being open to serve and have respectful conversations with the LGBT community.” END QUOTE

        So this sends the message that had it not been for persons of same sex relationships’ desire to marry – there would not be this magnitude of public initiatives to strengthen marriages and families……blah blah blah?!?!?

    • HW says:

      Actually Pastor Gary works tirelessly to help people from a whole hosts of situations. Absolutely- adultery and divorce of of the utmost concern because of the hurt and pain they result in. There’s free counseling even to those who don’t go to the church.

      However the issue of the day which people are pushing to change the law is SSM. I too share their belief that this is not a good thing for society in general.

      So it’s unhelpful to throw those sort of statements around “what about divorce? Etc” when: 1- that’s not the issue at hand and 2- a great deal IS being done on this front, you perhaps just haven’t seen it in the media.

      Finally on the topic of no fault divorce- do you think that has been good for the institution of marriage or not? Has it been good for society that people now generally don’t take marriage as seriously as perhaps they ought to? I think the evidence is quite clear as to how that’s working out for society. I believe changing the law regarding the institution of marriage again will only further take us from the ideal situation of marriage uniting 1 man and 1 woman and setting a structure in place that strengthens all of society and provides stability for the next generation.

      And yes- I agree with those who say that marriages currently are a mess as we’ve gotten away from what they’re intended to be. Let’s work to FIX more marriages rather than redefine them.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And yet, you’ve never offered a valid argument against changing the law.

        You’ve offered a bunch of redefinition a of marriage that do not apply to every relationship – thus rendering the argument invalid, as, if they aren’t stipulations for marriage, they aren’t arguments against allowing SSM – but no actual, valid, legal reasons to oppose this.

        Why is that?

    • Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

      None of the things you just listed is against man’s law…don’t you get it ?…man marrying man is illegal…criminal…obviously if you’re trying to change laws…somewhere someone made this law…do you ever wonder who or why…If anything science should be trying to correct the malfunctioning and damaged genes which results in this type of behaviour…so if you want to be treated like everyone else…then start acting like everyone else.

      NO to MARRIAGE.


      Sorry…you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

      NOW can we move on to something of IMPORTANCE..? Because I don’t find one man looking into another man’s eyes as you tell him that you love him… (sic)…to be of any significance to my child’s health and wellbeing here in Bermuda.

      Don’t worry…Satan will comfort your fears of the bibles teachings.

      • bdaboy says:

        Don’t worry, ‘keepin it…’ Satan will love you when you arrive :)

      • Mike Hind says:

        How will someone else’s relationship affect your child?

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        satan? One has to believe in fairy tales to believe in that crap. I suggest yopu go lie down.

      • serengeti says:

        In your imagination, what does ‘satan’ say about women who have five kids without getting married? That’s ok with him, is it?

      • blankman says:

        Keepin it real, are you so selfish that you don’t want other people to enjoy the same rights that you do?

        And stop with the “malfunctioning and damaged genes” bit – fact is, a gay sex gene could well confer evolutionary advantages.

  18. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    Message to all Lesbians ,Homosexuals,Gay people,and transvestites,etc.You all had a father and mother of opposite sex.Married or not.So in history ,by country ,race or national origin it has been this way for billions of years and it will be this way for billions of years to come cause the Creator of life planned it this way so,get over it ,you losers.And G-D said talking to Iblis ,the Devil ,or Shaitain ,or satan,or whatever you wish to call the evil one on the Planet Earth , and if they follow you,I will fill hell with all of you.Deviates.

  19. Will says:

    I wonder how many of these folks are about preserving marriage.

    • Daylilly says:

      Perhaps divorcees are the most qualified to speak on preserving marriage.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Yes. Hypocrites are usually the best people to speak against something.

        • Daylilly says:

          Oh, so you have never made any wrong choices and learned from them. What about all the people who stood against SSM 15-20 years ago and have now suddenly had a great epiphany, are they hypocrites, or are they people who changed their mind for whatever reason.?

          People can change you know. Many people had one mindset about who they were, what type of person they wanted to love and marry then they changed their mind… Are they hypocrites, or are they people who saw life differently at some point?

          Please try to express yourself without calling people names.

          • Mike Hind says:

            For someone advocating the denial of rights to our fellow citizens, you sure do have a problem with people using words to describe behaviour,

            It’s weird that…

            • Daylilly says:

              No, Mike I have a problem with using names to describe people, not names to describe behavior.

              • Mike Hind says:

                You really have no clue how words work, do you?
                I mean… wow.

                Here’s what kills me… you have more of a problem with people calling names than with your fellow citizens being denied equal rights.

                That’s just bizarre.

                But I guess privileged people will always play the victim…

          • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

            Daylilly you are just hilarious!

            yes- people can change. like people like you, who for some reason think your fellow humans are disgusting and immoral just for being homosexual (yes, I read the other comments too)can change.

            come on, just admit it, you are terrified of those feelings you get and you are afraid you might be in the closet……come and join us, come out!

            • Daylilly says:

              PPMM, Gues what? Your insults aren’t insulting. I’m not disgusted by any group of people, I have close relationships with many people and am not threatened by their orientation. It’s small minded and immature of you to refer to gay people as disgusting and immoral, or to think that I would.

              People are just people, gay or straight, Christian or agnostic and there is good and bad in all people. If you really read my posts, that’s what you would have seen. Your post was weird, how old are you?

              • Semenologist says:

                Daylilly, i HAVE read your contirbutions, and i understand your probnlem with ssm clearly.

                I really really hope you find peace and learn to accept all of us humans, not just the ones that you want to accept.

                I assume you like I are not celevbrating the season because it is not a christian holiday, but i hope the time off with family and friends will bring you peace.

          • aceboy says:

            “What about all the people who stood against SSM 15-20 years ago and have now suddenly had a great epiphany, are they hypocrites,”

            What about the people who stood against interracial marriage 40 to 50 years ago? Are they hypocrites?

            • Daylilly says:

              I don’t know. You and your cronies are saying that divorced people can’t speak on marriage. I merely pointed out that people can learn from their mistakes and change their mind on issues.

              BTW the race card is played out, you need a new deck.

              • Zevon says:

                Liar. I asked what divorced people would have to say about single sex marriage.
                What would they have to say about it?

      • Zevon says:

        Why would divorced straight people have anything to say about single sex marriage?

      • blankman says:

        lilly, perhaps. Of course that assumes that they aren’t attempting to remarry.

        BTW, on the topic of divorces christian churches are not all on the same page. I’m aware of one denomination that will marry people provided that they haven’t been divorced more than three times.

        As for divorcees being qualified to speak on “preserving marriage” if the topic is how to prevent a breakup that might be true. If it’s a matter of who is morally entitled to be married that’s a different matter [especially if they're looking to the bible for guidance as to why someone should or shouldn't be allowed to be married.]

  20. Acegurl says:

    What is it to anyone else as to how people live their lives? As long as people are not breaking the law and the practices are private, ‘Judge not lest you be judged’ comes to mind for the religiously inclined. It is so sad there are not responses such as this to murder, paedophilia, rape and all other crimes for that matter.

    • Daylilly says:

      Acegurl, there are already laws against murder, paedophilia, rape and other crimes, that’s why they are called crimes. There are also already services in and outside of the church to help the victims and the perpetrators. The crimes you listed are often due to the breakdown of the family unit and children’s lack of fatherly love and protection. Legalizing SSM says that fathers are irrelevant and we all know that to be untrue.

      The communist in China, many atheists and even many people from the LGBT community want to preserve marriage between a man and a woman. They are not judging people, they have simply made a conscious decision about the purpose of marriage.

      • aceboy says:

        ” They are not judging people, they have simply made a conscious decision about the purpose of marriage.”

        Do you have any idea what the ‘traditional’ purpose of marriage actually is? I don’t think you do.

        • blankman says:

          ace, I’ll guarantee she has no idea about the historical basis of marriage.

  21. allinlove says:

    Marriage is so important. I was one of those children who didn’t have the constant presence of a father for the first 13 years of my life and since my biological parents married and we have all been living together, I see the benefits.

    • Mike Hind says:

      I agree, so do many other supporters of marriage equality,

      That’s why we are trying to help folks get married.

    • blankman says:

      Mike’s nailed it.

      But just so you know, a recent study by the University of Melbourne concluded that children of same sex parents actually fared better than those of hetero parents.

  22. Daylilly says:

    Equality should given to everyone. Children and adults. None of us exist without both a mom and a dad. Legislatively excluding either a mom or dad from marriage & the family unit is depriving children of their human rights. You can’t be human without both. The family unit has already suffered with the anything goes and nothing matters nonsense adults have tried to stuff down the throats of our children.

    • Mike Hind says:

      This entire argument has been shown to be wrong many, many times.

      Procreation isn’t a stipulation for marriage.
      No one has a human right to a mother and father.
      Gay folks can’t have kids without really really wanting them, thus, as many studies have shown, providing a solid family unit.

      Same Sex Marriage won’t affect anyone else’s marriage.

      You are wrong.

      • Daylilly says:

        Having a mother and father is the most fundamental human right. Human nature demands that all children born have both a mom and a dad. The government’s involved because strong families build strong societies.

        Since the days of the Greek philosophers the issues of homosexuality and marriage have been pondered…… It was agreed that male/female marriage fostered strong societies. The entire globe fostered this concept, not because they were homophobic but because it’s true.

        • Mike Hind says:

          No. It’s simply not! Nothing in here is true!

          It’s amazing that you can just make this stuff up and act like it’s true in order to justify discrimination!

        • aceboy says:

          “The government’s involved because strong families build strong societies.”

          Bermuda must be a very weak society with all the fatherless children running around.
          By your logic, wouldn’t it be better to have two loving mothers or two loving fathers rather than one struggling parent and 8 half siblings?

    • Hmmm says:

      Daylilly, you are saying that no child should be born out of wedlock. Compulsory abortions is part of your agenda then.

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        daylilly says a lot of things. unfortunatly, he/she is just repeating nonsense over and over. there is no human right to two opposite sex parents. that is ridiculous. can daylilly or any of these other ACTION TEAM SUPERHEROES please speak to the fact that the numbers of reported domestic abuse cases against women in Bermuda is higher than the world avergae?

        preserve marriage, where women in Bermuda are routinely abused, physically, financially, emotionally or sexually abused?


        • Daylilly says:

          PPMM what’s nonsense is that you won’t recognize that you can’t have a human without a mom and dad, therefore the most fundamental human right is to have a mom and a dad. You have at least one of each and so does everyone of us. Whose eyes do you have, whose sarcasm do you have.

          • Mike Hind says:

            No what’s nonsense is your position.

            None of it is actually true.

          • Semenologist says:

            Wow. I hope this person gets some help. MAWI phone number: 441 236-2345

          • Mike Hind says:

            How will Same Sex Marriage stop kids from having a mom and a dad?
            How will allowing people to get married stop people from making babies?
            How will it change how people are made?

            Let’s say that you’re right and it IS a fundamental human right to have a mother and father. You’re not, but let’s say you are.

            How will allowing people to get married change that fundamental human right?
            You are talking about purely the mechanics of it, of course. Having two people combine cells to create a baby, right?

            How will this change if gay folks are allowed to get married?

            I don’t expect you to answer, as you never do, but the question has to be asked.

      • Daylilly says:

        I said what I’m saying, no inferences need to be made.

        • Mike Hind says:

          THe thing is, you KEEP saying them, even after people point out that you’re wrong.

          Spreading lies is shameful.

  23. DownLow70 says:

    Crazy thing is I see two men that are on the DL in that pic.. SMH! Married and sleeping with guys on the DL but protecting marriages for straights only.. lol!

    • Proud to be Bermudian says:

      Lol… Funnily I was thinking the same thing. I know for a FACT that at least two of them are DL.

  24. Me says:

    Well that’s no surprise there are 198 ignorant people out there , I’m sure there are many more who will be crawling out of the woodwork.

    • Daylilly says:

      Still with the name cslling

      • Me says:

        You know what, at this point my feelings are more Malcolm X than MLK. I’m tired of turning the other cheek only to be abused and degraded again and again. I stand by my words.

        • Daylilly says:

          The strength of both of those men weren’t in the names they called. Malcolm X and Dr. King relied on the strength of their message. If your message is strong then stand on that.

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        Not name calling to point out ignorance, Daylilly. Name calling is to say these people are stupid, narrow minded, homophobic bigots. nobody has said this…..yet.


        • Daylilly says:

          Just because your name calling has more than one syllable doesn’t mean it’s any less juvenile.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Any chance of you answering the many questions people have about how the things you’ve posted?

            Or are you going to continue to whine about all the name calling ( as if that’s comparable to the denial of rights and privileges to citizens that you support)?

    • HW says:

      This is the type of comment that is unhelpful to the discussion. Anyone with a differing opinion should not be immediately labelled and bullied. Particularly when you seem to be missing the crux of PM’s position and their attitude towards those they disagree with.

      • Mike Hind says:

        You know what WOULD be helpful to this discussion?

        You giving a valid, honest argument against same sex marriage.

        Why haven’t you done that?

    • TheForce says:

      So you consider those with a different belief or perspective from your own to be ignorant? That is very disappointing.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Daylily, HW and TheForce,

      You know what WOULD help the discussion?

      An honest, legitimate, valid reason to continue denying equal rights to our fellow citizens.

      Will you be providing one, or just continue playing the victim whenever someone calls you on your bigotry?

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        They simply dont have one. Unfortunatly for this team of action heroes, they really have no foundation at all, and for some reason are unashamed of this, and happy to put their faces out there. neighbours, family and friends have and will pour over this bad photoshop job and point out the single mothers, the divorcees, the gays in the closet, all the contradictions, and still our heroes have nothing real and concrete to say about why they wish to deny fellow Bermudians the chance to be happy and love who they want to love.

      • blankman says:

        Mike, not to worry. They don’t have one.

  25. It is not a choice says:

    Lovely that this group has formed to share their opinion, but I don’t see what this has to do with who I want to marry? Who I marry has nothing to do with them.

  26. Unbelievable says:

    I’m a straight male and I support same sex marriage. It’s none of my business what consenting adults do with their lives.

    Preserve Marriage should also follow that ideal because it’s none of their’s too.

    • You’re wrong. Marriage is a legal issue, supported by the government. I have a say so.

      • Zevon says:

        so you think discrimination is perfectly ok then. Got it.

      • blankman says:

        rodney, marriage is a legal issue but this one doesn’t affect you. So why are you objecting?

    • HW says:

      I don’t find your argument very compelling. There are a great many laws on the books that you might be able to argue don’t affect you directly in an immediate way. Yet they exist because we recognize the bigger picture. The law is a teacher and if we redefine marriage we will teach that mothers and fathers are irreplaceable when all the years of social science we have proves otherwise. No- not every marriage results in kids but that unique union still upholds the ideal for all of society.

      • blankman says:

        Based on that logic laws should never be changed. Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote and slavery should still be the law of the land.

    • HW says:

      Additionally, nobody is saying we want to stop gay people from living the lifestyle they choose. We just don’t believe they should be able to redefine marriage to suit their lifestyle.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Why not?

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        why use the term lifestyle? why not just life?

        Are you being patronising?

      • aceboy says:

        “We just don’t believe they should be able to redefine marriage to suit their lifestyle.”

        Marriage has been redefined many times, to suit your lifestyle.

      • blankman says:

        HW, the first thing wrong with your post is the word “lifestyle”. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

        But we’re still waiting for a legitimate reason to deny an already marginalized group of people the same rights you already enjoy.

    • Daylilly says:

      That may be true except that consenting adults want to include non-consenting children.

      • Zevon says:

        Like unmarried mothers who have five kids and bring them up in poverty?

      • Mike Hind says:

        I’m begging you to explain how they’re involving non-consenting children in anything.

      • What?? says:

        Interesting. So children born to hetrosexual couples are consenting to be born?

      • blankman says:

        I have no idea what that post is supposed to mean? Care to elaborate so you can be proven wrong (again)?

    • TheForce says:

      Actually, the marriages in a community end up affecting the entire population. When we look at problems in society, the vast majority leads back to problems with family structure. Promoting healthy marriages between men and women can only help to solve these problems, by providing children with the unique abilities that only a mother AND father can give.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Studies have found that same sex couples are just as good at raising children as opposite sex couples.

        If this is about children for you, shouldn’t we be working to create MORE families, rather than barring people from becoming families?

        • HW says:

          Those studies I’ve seen were not random or large samples. This is a relatively new phenomenon so there is not a longterm track of how this works over time.

          However there is little reason to think that SSM would be a positive thing for society as a whole. Not because same sex couples are incapable of loving or raising kids. It’s because decades of social science show that children raised by a married biological mother and father fare better, on average and for the most part, than kids in ANY other situation. that includes kids of single parents, divorced parents, divorced and remarried parents, and cohabitation.

          Preserve Marriage’s position is not based on denying rights, not based on not liking gay people and not based on religion. It’s based on the truth which is evident in all the comprehensive studies on family structure, that what’s best for kids and society is when we uphold the definition of marriage as being 1 man and 1 woman. this is the structure that works best overall.

          sure, there are lots of failed attempts but the ideal structure still should be what all marriages model- whether they result in kids or not.

          • Mike Hind says:


            so… you’re allowed to cite studies, but any opposing your position aren’t valid.


            And by attempting to uphold the current restriction, you ARE, in fact, denying rights to people.

            And it absolutely IS about religion. Don’t even TRY to push that lie!

            There is NO evidence that same sex marriage will be bad for society and you have shown absolutely no possible ways it could be.

            Come on. At least TRY some honesty.

            • HW says:

              Mike You’ve misrepresented what I said completely or maybe you’ve just failed to understand so I’ll clarify: the studies are not equally valid because the ones I’ve seen which claim to show children from same sex couples fare as good or better than other unions, were not large or random samples. Therefore their validity has to be questioned. Also they don’t track over the long term as this is a relatively new phenomenon. If you don’t understand the significance of this and believe the studies are an apples to apples comparison, then I can’t help you.

              We have large random samples covering decades of research which have indicated that on average, children from homes where their biological mother and father are married tend to do better than children from any other situation. Therefore in addition to the method by which these studies were taken, we’re forced to be skeptical as to how a SSM home can be as beneficial as a home where the biological mother and father are married.

              Again this is not to say SSM couples can’t love and raise a child successfully. This is pointing out that social science gathered from large random samples over a longer period of time points to the ideal situation being a home with the biological mother and father raising their child. This is undeniable and it’s almost humorous that people are offended by the notion that a person’s biological parents are ideally best suited to raise them. Marriage encourages that structure. I’ll agree- heterosexuals have fallen WOEFULLY short in living up to that ideal. That’s largely why we have the social issues we do- fatherless children’s and broken homes. Understand- I’m not judging or condemning anyone who comes from those situations as there are many success stories. But they generally have a harder road and could certainly have benefited from their mother and father raising them in a committed marriage.

              Of course there are exceptions. Certainly there are bad or absent heterosexual parents and certainly thee are good gay parents. But we’re talking about the best ideal for children and to deny that ideal structure weakens the family structure by saying mothers and fathers are easily replaceable.

              • Mike Hind says:

                All of this is irrelevant as this is not a stipulation nor a restriction regarding marriage.

                Creating the “ideal” for child rearing isn’t a necessity for getting married and allowing folks to get married will not “weaken the family structure”.

                Same Sex Marriage does NOT say that mothers and fathers are easily replaceable.

                People aren’t “offended by the notion that a person’s biological parents are ideally best suited to raise them”. That is a misrepresentation of the truth.
                What they ARE offended by is the notion that someone is using misinformation and bizarre arguments – like “because they aren’t the ideal for raising children, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married” – to deny access to rights and privileges to a group of citizens of this country.

                Do you have an ACTUAL argument against allowing two consenting adults to get married?

                I await your response.

          • True Lies says:

            By your logic, we should also outlaw divorce, and force widows with children to remarry or take their kids away.

            There are plenty of people who shouldn’t have children, because they are unable to provide them with basic needs. However, we don’t legislate requirements for having children, because it is a human right.

            The debate on same sex marriage should not be based on children or families, because not everyone who gets married wants kids, and not everyone who has kids is married. Your entire post is not relevant.

          • What?? says:

            I love just how many qualifiers you needed in that statement. “fare better, on average and for the most part”

            The fact is that economics is by far the greatest factor. Poverty is by far the largest stressor on families.

          • blankman says:

            HW, sorry but Prevent Marriages position is based entirely on denying rights to a group of people that are different from them.

            As for studies – recent work by legitimate researchers show that children of same sex couples generally fare better than those raised by hetero couples. The exception to that is the fact that those kids are at risk of homophobic bullying due to who their parents are.

    • Connor says:

      it is when the ideal effects the entire community. Then it becomes a social issue, which is exactly what redifing marriage is

      • Zevon says:

        Why on earth would it become a “social issue”? What possible impact would it have on anyone else?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Nothing in the replies above are even remotely true or legitimate.

  27. jim hill says:

    So how, exactly, does same sex marriage affect anyone other than those getting married? How does it affect my marriage, my morals or my life? It doesn’t! Why are we fighting about this? What is to be gained by denying the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the straight community to everyone else?

    • HW says:

      Again I don’t find this argument very compelling. Redefining marriage does impact society in a variety of ways.

      • Walk in their shoes says:

        How does it negatively impact society in general?

      • Mike Hind says:


        You keep saying this, but never actually say how…

    • TheForce says:

      Marriage laws only work to define marriage. Nothing is preventing same-sex couples from living together or interacting with those that support their relationship. The problem is when the government redefines marriage, it essentially forces others to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.

      • Mike Hind says:

        wrong again.

        The law prevents two people, one from Bermuda and one from elsewhere, from living together here in Bermuda… At least until it changes soon.

        But there are tonnes of other rights that are denied to same sex couples, meaning that that can’t in fact, always live their lives together.

        And, what, exactly, is the problem with redefining marriage?

        • Daylilly says:

          Redefining marriage will force changes in education and religion. Children may be taught differently in history, social studies, science, and health and encouraged to explore issues their immature brains are unequipped for. Denying the truth about marriage is an inroad to denying and destroying the very social structure that SSM proponents say they want to be a part of.

          • Mike Hind says:

            What? Changes in religion? How on earth is this going to change religion?

            And are you actually saying that teaching tolerance for other people is a BAD thing?
            Changing education happens all the time when new data comes in!

            I’m… I don’t understand how you think.

            How will SSM destroy marriage? Please explain that!

            I don’t get it.

          • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

            Here comes jesus into the argument…..

            can you accept that some people dont believe in your jesus?

            How will history be taught differently now??

            How is exploring issues a bad thing for children??

            Im getting more and more confused by your “logic” as i read your comments. you say its not about religion, but then it is. I dont understand what its got to do with you, unless as i suspect, you are afraid and intimidated by your own feelings towards this, for a very personal reason.

            you know, studies show that possibly one in foru people experience some sort of homosexual feelings and / or act on it.

            thats 49 and a half of the above group……..

          • aceboy says:

            “…encouraged to explore issues their immature brains are unequipped for.”

            This is it…it’s actually you who can’t wrap your head around it. It’s you who personally have a problem with it, despite that fact that it has absolutely no effect on your life whatsoever. It’s you who want others to live by your ideals. It’s you who has an immature brain.

          • blankman says:

            lilly, no idea how this could possibly change religion. After all, no-one is going to rewrite the Bible if same-sex marriage is allowed.

            And how exactly is this “denying the truth” about marriage. Marriage is a purely legal construct – the church didn’t even get involved until the 12th century. And how can SSM be an inroad to denying and destroying the social structure?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Notice the distinct lack of response to the replies on this.
            Instead, “daylily” simply ignores all this and continues to spread this misinformation.

            It’s disgusting.

          • blankman says:

            lilly, for the record explaining same sex relationships to kids goes something like this:

            Child: why does Uncle Bob go everywhere with Pete?
            Answer: Because they’re in love like Mommy and Daddy.
            Child: Okay. Can I have a cookie?

            I guess this is the point where we realize that child is scarred for life?

  28. Walk in their shoes says:

    But what can an ‘action team’ do in terms of initiatives? This isn’t like a gang prevention team that can go out and reach out to people sitting on the wall, for instance.

    This is about a difference in opinion on what a married couple can be composed of, and the argument of being ideal for procreation is fatally flawed in that you don’t need to do one, to do the other.

  29. campervan. says:

    Today in Bagram, Afganisthan Major Adrianna Vonderbruggen, an openly gay Major in the US airforce and five other US troops lost their lives to a suicide bomber while on patrol, leaving behind her wife Heather and son Jacob in Washington D.C.
    Meanwhile the “Preserve Marriage” action team here at home rallies together their posse of haters to dispense pointless hysteria and nonsense about other peoples business.
    Shame on all y’all. For shame. Go do something useful with yourselves.

    • Daylilly says:

      All lives are valuable, especially those who would lay down their life for a stranger or friend. The loss of US troops in Afghanistan is awful. Bermudians speaking up for what they believe actually honors their death. The U.S. Troops are fighting to uphold the democratic process, Preserve Marriage is also fighting for the democratic process. Let the community speak for itself.

      • campervan. says:

        You are not honouring Adrianna’s death. You are attempting to block her human rights and impose on her your own set of values.

      • aceboy says:

        “Let the community speak for itself.”

        Which community? the one you agree with or the one you don’t?

    • Stunned... says:

      @campervan – agreed but why does anybody’s sexuality have to be mentioned? do we have to say there were 5 openly (possibly) straight and 1 gay or just that 6 people lost their lives while defending many others in the course of their service?

  30. some beach says:

    Preserve marriage…best idea!….it is a most beautiful thing….teach it t9 our youth…

  31. Daylilly says:

    If who people marry was none of anyone’s business, why does the government license it at all. There are many adult consenting relationships that the government has no interest in. There are many religious ceremonies that the government has no interest in. Across the entire globe marriage has been traditionally licensed and provided with benefits because it often produces offspring. Atheistic and Polytheistic societies and all of the 8 major religions and 173 nations and billions of people define marriage as between a man and a woman.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And yet, you’re wrong.

      It IS nothing to do with anyone else and the government recognizing the relationship and granting rights and privileges isn’t an argument against that.

      Oh, and “…because it often produces offspring” is simply untrue.

      Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage.

      • Daylilly says:

        Procreation is not a stipulation, but it is an expected consequence.

  32. Daylilly says:

    If who people marry was none of anyone’s business, why does the government license it at all. There are many adult consenting relationships that the government has no interest in. There are many religious ceremonies that the government has no interest in. Across the entire globe marriage has been traditionally licensed and provided with benefits because it often produces offspring.

    • aceboy says:

      “Across the entire globe marriage has been traditionally licensed and provided with benefits because it often produces offspring.”

      And it often doesn’t. Your point is moot.

  33. Conor says:

    Okay, so it looks like the action team would like an intelligent discussion. I am happy that they are not using religious grounds their arguments. Their point that marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial for society because of how it effects a child’s development is fair. If this were true, this could be grounds for discrimination. However, Intelligent discussions need data.

    Here are three scholarly article indicating gay parents raise children just as well as straight parents:

    I was unable to find a reliable article that indicated otherwise. There appears to be no evidence gay parents are worse than straight parents. This means that discriminating gay people from marrying on the grounds they make worse parents is invalid.

    The team’s point that, very probably, the majority of Bermudians wish to uphold the current marriage laws is also fair. I hope that this is not the case but if it could well be. An online petition is obviously not a very accurate indicator but the prevalence of christianity on the island is. We cannot know unless there is a referendum.

    If it is announced that there will be a referendum, both sides will argue their position in the hope of persuading swing voters. It is unethical and deceptive for the action team to try a persuade voters to uphold the current marriage laws on the grounds that gay people make worse parents as it is untrue. Unless the action team can provide any other reliable data indicating otherwise, the action team should retract the statement that:

    “Men and women, who become husbands and wives, who become fathers and mothers, bring separate, distinct and irreplaceable parenting dynamics to the life of a child.”

    Currently, the only argument for the case of upholding the current marriage laws is that most Bermudians do want gay people to marry. If this is true, I find it profoundly saddening. Discrimination should never take place on religious grounds. If you practice faith that does not agree with same-sex marriage, no one will force you to marry some one of the same sex if it becomes legal. I don’t see how anyone can argue that it is their business weather or not someone else gets married.

    How is marriage equality any different from racial equality? How can those who profess to be devout christians also call for discrimination against their fellow Bermudians. The Action Team is arguing in favour of inequality which leads to hate. Please Bermuda, be on the side of love and not hate.

    If you would like to discuss anything outside of the comments section, please send me an email at

    • Daylilly says:

      Conor, where did PM say that LGBT people are worse parents. I believe it was said that the best social outcomes are from an intact home when children are raised by a mom & dad. No one said that LGBT parents aren’t good people or couldn’t make good parents.

      You listed studies, but fact finding is a paid business and studies could be mustered up to say anything “scholarly” or not. For hundreds of years studies said that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that children and societies at large will benefit. Thousands of years of social order across the globe also say this. No study can deny thousands of years of truth.

      • Mike Hind says:

        You are amazing.

        You actually say that same sex couples are worse “…the best social outcomes… A mom and a dad.” After asking where they said that! How do you not see this. If opposite sex couples are better, as you claim, then same sex couples are worse! That’s how words work!

        And then you denounce evidence and data of studies and then make a baseless statement with no evidence!

        Amazing, the dishonesty.

        • Daylilly says:

          Mike you made your own inferences to what was said… You didn’t quote what was said, which means you used your own ideology to describe my words. I Never gave out a trophy for worse parent. Again, being so concerned with adult desires that you failed to observe that the entire point was about children, the family dynamic and the society. That is the “best social outcomes” that was referred to. The study was regarding children and their outcomes, not who is a better person or parent.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Sheer, unadulterated nonsense.

            You are so blinded by your desperate need to rationalize discrimination, you are literally babbling nonsense.

            I quoted exactly what you said. Truncated, but the meaning was still there, in context.

            For someone so against redefining what words mean, you sure do it a lot!

            Any chance of you explaining how SSM will affect anyone else? Or offering a valid argument against SSM?

            You’ve been posting a lot, but never seem to actually do this.

            Why is that?

      • AgeBees says:

        Daylilly – “thousands of years of truth” – who’s truth are you referring to?

        Traditional marriage has not existed that long…even the Bible states that men could have more than one wife. In many cultures it is perfectly acceptable for men to just go and have sex with as many women as possible.

        I wish this action group would really own up to what they are arguing for (ironically even the people that say they aren’t religious) which is ‘Christian’ [traditional] marriage. That’s the worst part…even people who say they aren’t Christian are pushing for Christian marriage because they think that it is ‘normal’.

        • Daylilly says:

          Actions often predate the words to describe it. The social dynamic of commtted male/female relationships which produce children have existed since the beginning of humans. Later it was given a universally accepted name, but marriage existed long before someone gave a name to describe it. Marriage lies at the foundation of government; it is the bond on which society is built. Marriage, and as a consequence children, then the family. These things were said by Confucious and Cicero and all across the world by many others who were not Christian.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Procreation is not a stipulation for nor a restriction from marriage.

            Your point is false.

            Even if it is a possibility in a marriage, it is not a requirement.

            Do you have a VALID argument against SSM?

      • What?? says:

        “No study can deny thousands of years of truth.”

        Tell that to Galileo and Copernicus.

      • Conor says:

        PM said that same-sex partners make worse parents when they said, “Men and women, who become husbands and wives, who become fathers and mothers, bring separate, distinct and irreplaceable parenting dynamics to the life of a child.”

        They claim it is critical to be raised by a mother and a father, i.e. same-sex parents are worse. Every reliable scientific study has shown otherwise. They are paid to make these studies, but it is still solid science.

        “Thousands of years of social order across the globe also say this” is anecdotal evidence and is susceptible to bias and interpretation. These studies are unbiased, like any good science should be. I would also argue that there has not been thousands of years of social order but the probably with that statement is that it’s so vague. There are far too many ways to define “social order” for that statement to be a part of a valid argument.

  34. mf87 says:

    Embarrassing photoshop job….. they can’t preserve a picture, nevermind a marriage (whatever that means)

  35. Verly says:

    These people are entitled to their views as so called “Christians.” The problem I have is them trying to push their views on others. I have been approached a couple of times by the members of this “action team” to sign their petition, which I declined to do. In my opinion they shouldn’t be allowed to pester and harass people to sign this garbage. Save their hate for inside their own “sacred” walls, and let people go about their business without being bothered.

  36. Malachi says:

    I’m a straight male and for the life of me cannot figure out why some straight people have a problem with same sex marriage. To you objectors, what is it to YOU?

    • HW says:

      I’d encourage you to listen to Dr. Ryan Anderson’s talk from when he was here. There is a great deal of social science and other evidence as to why this is not a good thing for society and it’s not related in any way to being ‘against’ anybody.

      • Mike Hind says:

        such as?

        I’ll keep asking…

      • Quinton Berkely Butterfield says:

        I was there. Ryan Anderson didn’t provide any evidence at all, he merely through out catch phrases to incite emotion and gave his data-less, non-evidence based opinion.

        • HW says:

          Why didn’t you challenge him Quinton? He actually does have a ton of statistical evidence if you had posed the question. I find it troubling that you attended but yet did not challenge him there and then when you had a chance, but now you feel comfortable in accusing him of having no data and no evidence, when he’s not here to easily refute your claim. That doesn’t do much to advance the debate.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Any chance of you telling us exactly how this will affect society?

            You keep claiming you want to advance the debate, then refuse to actually do that yourself.

            Why is that?

  37. Citmin says:

    Actually Gary Simons and Mark Hall do address other issues as you mentioned. They both have been dong great things for the community and young people.

  38. Malachi says:

    Furthermore, as I examine the above photo, there are some individuals there who have no room to talk about the morality of others.
    What hypocrites amongst us!

    • HW says:

      You have misunderstood. preserve Marriage has not assessed the morality of anybody. They’ve said they believe marriage should not be redefined and that the best thing for all of society is to have strong marriages. We should work on strengthening marriage on weakening it.

      No doubt, there is a great deal of work to be done and we’ve seen how badly society and our kids suffer when we fall short of the marriage ideal. This ideal should not be discarded though.

      • Mike Hind says:

        How does allowing more people to marry weaken marriages?

    • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

      Absolutely. as I have said, i am penning an email right now to one man who is in a long term gay relationship AND appears in that badly photoshopped picture too.

      The hypocrisy astounds me.

      • Daylilly says:

        So are you saying gay people don’t have the right to their own opinion on marriage. Being a Christian doesn’t make someone a saint and being gay doesn’t mean you have to support SSM….and you guys keep calling everyone else narrow minded.

  39. Terry says:

    All because of the law.
    The law.
    Change the law and this to shall pass.

  40. John says:

    These folks need to have a communication with the real life gay members of there friends and family and explain how they want to deny them their basic human rights ,we don’t see any Gods among these folks ?
    Their time would be better spent counseling the broken marriages and helping the unwed single moms and wife beaters , and parentless children that are rampant on the island which is destroying the santitity of marraige . It may also help for them to read their bibles, I can see a lot of lobster eaters here we won’t mention names the” holier than thou thing “is a disease .

  41. Eddy says:

    Proving yet again that religion is just a license to hate. Creatards.

    • HW says:

      Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not make them hateful. I find your comments disappointing and unfair. Can we not raise the standard of what constitutes civil behavior, on BOTH sides of this issue?

      • Mike Hind says:

        No, but denying right through lies and misinformation and dishonesty certainly does make it hateful.

      • Quinton Berkely Butterfield says:

        I just don’t get it. You people have called other people abominations for generations. You have forced gay people to marry the opposite sex for your own ego’s sake. Called men f’s and women d’s, tossed your children out of the house, killed, maimed, driven people to commit suicide, but now that the time has come and people are pushing back against your emotional torture and social destruction, you play victim and say “we all need to be civil”

        • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

          the meeting of the ACTION TEAM HEROES obviously covered the topic of how to deflect a question:

          You say hey, can you not be civil?

          And when they ask for an answer again you said:

          Youre rude. i dont need to engage with you.

          Ad infinitim.

        • HW says:

          So anybody who disagrees with you is labeled the same as those who did all those horrific things you mentioned? That’s not a mature or reasonable way to approach the discussion. Nor is it logical.

          You have painted everybody with the same brush and assumed that because they don’t support SSM, they must be just like those who will kill and abuse gay people.

          Just because I disagree with someone doesn’t mean I don’t love them. If we can’t respect each other without jumping to conclusions about what a person’s heart and intention is, then we’re all worse off. That applies to people on both sides of this issue. I continue to be frustrated by some people’s approach to this. it’s unfortunate and unnecessary.

          • Mike Hind says:

            But the thing is, we know what your intention is:

            To continue the denial of rights and privileges to our fellow citizens.

            What is it that frustrates you? When people ask simple questions that you don’t have an answer for? That would be frustrating.

            What’s unfortunate and unnecessary is this whole baseless opposition to giving people equal rights.

      • AgeBees says:

        It is SO very easy for the people who ‘have’ to want to have calm and collected discussions…

        Do you think the Black Panther movement should have only talked and discussed their issues in a civil and quiet way?

  42. 1 minute says:

    If we had a referendum for all important issue, firstly nothing would ever get done in Government. We would also still have slavery, women would not be able to vote, actually only land owners would be able to vote.
    I am a heterosexual male and I support same sex marriage.

  43. He that is without sin cast the first stone! It is quite obvious in this photo that AME Preachers & Pastors are missing. Were are they?

  44. Observation says:

    He/she that is without sin cast the first stone. Seems like the AME Preachers and Pastors are missing in action.

  45. Benjammin says:

    A government has no place in it’s citizen’s bedrooms. Neither do these people.

    • HW says:

      Another failure to understand the position of Preserve Marriage. Nobody is campaigning against gay people or trying to stop them doing what they do in their bedrooms.

      Does the law regarding marriage exist because the government is interested in what people are doing in their bedrooms? Absolutely not. The law exists as a teacher, to uphold and promote that which is best for all of society. That has been and will remain the concept of 1 man and 1 woman committed to each other as unique and complimentary individuals. The ideal holds that they model and promote monogamy and stay together to raise any children that may result from their union.

      Does it always work out that way? Clearly not. Heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage and as a result of the weakening of marriage many children have missed out and suffered. This doesn’t mean we should redefine marriage but rather should work to strengthen the current structure as it is proven best for all.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Wow. You want to talk about failure to understand!

        You’ve pushed this message all night, with absolutely nothing substantive to back up your claims.

        I wonder if this will be forthcoming, or if you’ll continue on he same track of spreading lies and misinformation…

        How, exactly, does Same Sex Marriage weaken marriages or “the current structure”?

      • 1 minute says:

        So you’re saying the the Preserve Marriage group are OK with the homosexual life style and just don’t want them to get married? I don’t think so…

    • Daylilly says:

      Are you confusing marriage with sex. Marriage is a public issue because its effects reach far beyond the bedroom. It wouldn’t require a license if it didn’t effect the larger community.

      • Mike Hind says:

        How does it affect ANYONE else?

        And it requires a license because there are rights and privileges involved.

    • Daylilly says:

      Your correct. The government is not legalizing private consenting intercourse. It asked for opinions from the public about the committed relationship that often produces children. That’s why the government is involved with marriage.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Repeating a lie over and over won’t make it true.

        Why don’t you try honesty, instead?

  46. Human rights are far too important to leave to the moral majority. If we had allowed the majority to decide, women would still not have the right to vote or do anything else without the express permission of her husband or father or brother, and we would still have religiously endorsed slavery. The moral majority has far too frequently been on the wrong side of history. Maybe they should use their numbers to figure out why traditional marriage is on the decline, divorce is on the incline, mothers have multiple children for multiple men and fathers are frequently absent. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if these traditionalists were to try to impose their version of ideal marriage on the average male/female couple, they would be told where to go very quickly. If it would not be acceptable for them to impose their veiws on their own kind why should they be allowed to dictate to anyone else?

  47. Still Laughing says:

    Where I do believe in everyone having the right to their own opinion, I cannot take this group and their cause seriously as I can identify a number of divorced individuals and people of both sexes who are on the “DL”.

    • HW says:

      That’s not a particularly logical statement. So only those who have successful marriages are allowed to say they believe we should uphold the ideal of strong marriages? Perhaps it is these very people who have firsthand experience with the hardships that follow when our culture has failing marriages. That does not mean we should redefine marriage but rather find ways to strengthen the institution and it’s benefits not weaken and remove them.

      • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

        fair point HW. Now what about the men and women in this picture who are in long term homosexual relationships? Do you think they are pushed into joing the ACTION TEAM SUPER HEROES to drive themselves further into the closet, perhaps because their freinds, family and community would prefer them not to be gay?

  48. Rhonnda aka Blue Familiar says:

    If they want to preserve marriage, they need to focus their attention on those who are making a mockery of it, not those who wish to share in the act. Because that is where the problem lies, in heterosexuals, since we’re the only ones who’ve been doing it all these years.

    Focus on counseling those committing adultery.
    Focus on counseling those considering getting married so they go into it as a life-long commitment, not something that can be easily ended.
    Focus on counseling those who are struggling in their marriage and need guidance.
    Focus on teaching commitment to one person, on not having children prior to marriage, not having more than one child with more than one partner.
    Focus on teaching people that marriage is about the commitment to the person, not the big fancy expensive wedding or pretty piece of jewellery.
    Focus on counseling those who need help to find their own inner strength, instead of looking to others to give it to them.

  49. .am says:

    Where can I find a list of the members?

  50. No says:

    Wow this is sickening

    • Preserve the Preserve Marriage Marriage says:

      Sickening, or hilarious, whichever way you look at it.

      ACTION TEAM SUPER HEROES have 7000 bogus signatures on their petition, and a handful of photoshopped people in a picture. No matter what, they will not ever be as big as the law. and the law works.

  51. bluwater says:

    Apparently, THIS group want to redefine marriage as an institution where women are mandated broodmares for the church. Stuff it.

  52. One Love says:

    The Christian Army are amassing in their attempt to deny human rights. This is the tragedy of religion. This is why the separation of church and state is so important.
    There is no question that love between any two consenting adults needs to be equal. Marriage is the unification of love.
    Bermuda must step into the light and out of the darkness. Mans inhumanity to man has been perpetrated and fueled by dogmatic religious zealots. The world will not know true peace and love until humanity understands the reality of science and truth. 4200 religions 500 Gods are not the truth – they are man made fantasy.

    • Daylilly says:

      “4200 religions and 500 Gods”, but 1 definition of marriage…. That says something, the whole world could agree on nothing else except marriage. Why? The whole world couldn’t be homophobic.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Nope. Untrue. Throughout history, many religions have had many different definitions of marriage.
        You are wrong.

        Your constant misrepresentations of the truth is quite disgusting.

  53. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    Worse than same -sex marriages -is the problem of the permission of- nom -de-plumes-or to be specific,fake identities or false names.The cowards who use them like those who dominate great % of these so called blogs are filthy vipers for want of a better word,or serpents who beguile humanity from hiding like those serpents who influenced Adam,s behaviour through his woman ,or his sentimental nature or his weaker nature defined as being a woe-to his manhood or his stronger intellect which lifted him above all creatures or creation in existence.But the Creator said,he shall only bruise your heel but you shall bruise his head and I will fill hell with all of you that follow him or his influences.Get thee behind me you *******.

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

    Two mothers can’t be a father…two fathers can’t be a mother!

    • aceboy says:

      one mother and 8 baby daddies can’t be a family…rail against that instead.

      • Daylilly says:

        No one is trying to etch “1 mother and 8 babies daddies” into the standard to be upheld or into law.

        • Mike Hind says:

          It’s already in law. People are allowed to do this.
          It IS, however, not allowed for two consenting adults to have access to rights and privileges afforded to the rest of us.

          Can you please give a reason why they shouldn’t be?

    • mike says:

      And one mother can’t be a father. No sex before marriage!

  55. mike says:

    Your personal relationship with christ has nothing to do with me.

  56. stunned... says:

    “Preserve Marriage is the group behind the petition seeking support for Marriage in Bermuda to continue to be defined as being between a man and a woman.”

    if i distill this properly, we have a goup of people who want to take ownership of the definition of a word: Marriage. the english language has many words with more than one definition for it. Take the word “define”- it has at least three meanings 1)give exact meaning, 2) state or explain the scope of; 3) outline clearly, mark out boundary of. (Oxford University Press 1995)

    what precedent are we setting in the english language if we start regulating and legislating the definition of words? this is more troubling than two people of the same sex being able to be legally married in Bermuda.

    • Daylilly says:

      No, PM doesn’t want to take ownership of marriage… The government already has taken ownership in defining marriage. PM wants to continue abiding by the existing law. It’s SSM proponents who want to hijack the definition of marriage.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Changing an unjust law that discriminates and denies access to rights and privileges to a group of our fellow citizens isn’t a “hijacking”.

        It’s funny how you haven’t said why our society shouldn’t change the Matrimonial Clauses Act, nor given an honest, valid reason to oppose Same Sex Marriage, even when asked repeatedly, from several people.

  57. mike says:

    The organization’s primary purpose is to prevent same-sex marriage… not to preserve marriage. Otherwise, like a post earlier marriage, they would be campaigning for more marriage counseling, and preventing less divorces.

    If the litmus test for marriage is going to be the ability to have children. Then couples should have to demonstrate and prove their ability to produce.

  58. aceboy says:

    What a nice picture of a bunch of people who want hate to prevail and yet claim a moral high ground.

  59. Mike Hind says:

    And, as per usual, a whole bunch of misinformation, lies and nonsense disguised as truth and a whole lot of running away from simple questions.

    There is absolutely no interest in honest discussion on this topic on the part of the “Preserve Marriage” folks and their supporters. If there was, they’d be able to actually engage on the subject. They don’t.

  60. One Love says:

    “Relgions” have divided people for thousands of years.

  61. jono says:

    I think their arguments (and anti-SSM arguments in general) are better suited to an attempt to try to ban being gay, than SSM. Being gay is legal. Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples does absolutely nothing to Bermuda (no changing morals, no increase in the # of gays, etc) and only gives the rights afforded married couples to those who are gay. Marriage is a legal construct and so all of their arguments should be based on this fact. Not that being gay is bad/immoral, etc. Why don’t they argue that being gay should be banned?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Because they already lost that one, so they’re desperately trying to hold on to the last remnants of discrimination they have left.

  62. Shame on the Preserve Marriage contingent. You would deny an ill persons partner access to them in hospital. You would refuse them the right to inherit from a life built together. Shame on you.

    If you want to preserve marriage then perhaps consider that divorce rates are soaring. You can’t preserve what is already destroyed. So “we have an uncompromising stand do this in a loving way” (so perhaps you are trying to say that your stance will be done in a loving way)sounds like complete rubbish. That is like saying we drive our cars over you in a loving way. We love you but, will withhold your ability to marry the person you love. If those who wish to preserve marriage really want to do something forward thinking well then stop cheating on your spouses, stop getting divorced and fix your problems within. Do not perpetrate your anger and self-loathing for your horrible situations on people.

    The old saying work best: People in glass houses should not throw stones. Let he without sin throw the first stone. (I am paraphrasing for anyone who gets annoyed that I have not quoted it exactly!).

    Happy Christmas to everyone in support of equality. Yes, equality not just same sex marriage! This is going to happen. Be on the right side of history. Change will happen. It is better be part of the change than left behind.

  63. Triangle Drifter says:

    I can deal with God. His fan clubs & especially some of those fan club members I have a problem with.

  64. HAHA says:

    I know for a fact that a few people there are divorced so how are they preserving marriage? If you are divorced and remarried to someone else, in the eyes of the Lord you are an adulterer and that is a cold, hard FACT! In God’s eyes, marriage is FOREVER so if you divorce, in His eyes you are still married to your original spouse and are committing adultery if you have remarried and have sex with your new spouse. In fact, if you are divorced, remarry and your ex spouse dies, you are then a widow/widower in God’s eyes…HOWEVER, you then need to remarry your current spouse because God would not consider that marriage valid when your ex was alive. Even if that ex dies and you stay legally married, in God’s eyes you commit adultery until you take those vows again. This is true if you truly obey scripture! You can’t sugarcoat it and change it to suit man’s laws-it’s God’s laws that count. What a bunch of adultering hypocrites.

    • Daylilly says:

      Haha. That’s like saying that someone whose been in heterosexual relationship can’t now want a homosexual marriage. People change. What people have done in sin is forgivable through Christ. Sin is forgivable if you acknowledge it as wrong, confess you have sinned, ask God for forgiveness and turn away from the sin. Once you come to salvation you are no longer called an adulterer, liar, thief, hypocrite, etc…. you are called forgiven. That’s the awesome thing about God, we are all equally unrighteousness but some of us have chosen redemption through Christ. This love is available to all.

  65. Mike Hind says:

    What’s amazing to me is that these folks on here spouting the “how dare they try to redefine marriage!” line are actually trying to do that themselves with this new “it’s about the kids” thing.
    Marriage is not defined as “possibly having kids”. This is simply not the case.

    So, which is it? Is redefining marriage bad, or is it ok when you do it?

  66. Daylilly says:

    There are many types of human relationships, but only 1 is an intended covenant that may reproduce and this relationship is called marriage. There are 4200 religions with 500 Gods and 1 definition of marriage that has stood the test of time. All peoples of all faiths and no faiths, recognize the distinct and necessary differences that make the unique relationship called marriage.

    We can’t blame the God of the Christians for the opinions of Confucius or Cicero other philosophers and thinkers throughout time who say that marriage, the existing definition of marriage is the foundation on which society is built.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Why do you keep pretending that the ability to have kids is a stipulation for marriage?

      This is not an argument against same sex marriage.

      Not being able to have kids together isn’t a restriction against marriage.

      Please stop spreading lies. It’s not right.
      You’re hurting people.

    • What?? says:

      Daylilly. Repeating the same falsehoods over and over is never going to make them true. I suggest you pick up a history book or a sociology text instead of the Bible occasionally.

    • Zevon says:

      This is just nonsense. Even in Bermuda, today, there are many types of family. They all exist. Allowing one group of people to formalize their unions will make absolutely no difference at all to the rest of us.

  67. bdaboy says:

    ” 1 definition of marriage”

    No, there isn’t. Constantly repeating this lie won’t make it come true.
    Lying is a sin isn’t it? Aren’t you afraid you’ll burn in hell for this?

  68. Edward Case says:

    Bible thumpers. Stay home and pretend Jesus was born in a cow shed. Leave the marriage thing alone you ignorant fools. You believe in fairy tales, yet you can’t accept Ssm. Funny.

  69. Mike Hind says:

    There you have it, folks!

    Yet another news post about SSM where the opponents do the same thing they always do…

    Try out the latest excuse to deny rights, then refuse to engage anyone that asks simple questions, replying only with more lies, the victim card, pretending that being called names is somehow worse that the unfairness that they support, personal attacks and evasions, then running away, leaving a page of unanswered questions.

    The next one will be the same. Mark my words,

    Ah, well. It must be hard, being on the wrong side of history and knowing, deep down, that you are.

    It’s just such a shame that we have this mindset that it’s ok to lie outright to people in order to rationalize discrimination.

    That way of thinking is bad for Bermuda,

    • New to the debate says:

      Human rights. Where did they come from? It seems to me the basis of your claim to SSM is based on the logic of your human right. It seems that “rights” come from abstract reason. (See insert below).

      Human rights, rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals simply for being human, or as a consequence of inherent human vulnerability, or because they are requisite to the possibility of a just society. Whatever their theoretical justification, human rights refer to a wide continuum of values or capabilities thought to enhance human agency or protect human interests and declared to be universal in character, in some sense equally claimed for all human beings, present and future.

      Human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning.

      Notice the words “wide continuum of values or capabilities” (2nd paragraph), and “abstract reasoning” (3rd paragraph).

      I therefore postulate that we are “moral” being by nature. We cannot escape making decisions in life without first making a “moral” judgement. So the SSM decision is a moral one. Logic based upon a moral rational or a perceived value.

      Now we must reason, of all that exist in this world “mankind” is distinct and is at the apex of it all, why? Surely there must be a designer. Why was it designed this way? What is the purpose of our existence?

      I believe if you “truly” answer these questions, and not reject them because you want to deny what they suggest, you will acknowledge everything that exist is subject to some “being” (life), and not some “thing” (non-life). You can’t get life from non-life. It is illogical!

      Some “one” had to establish the order. Human beings are “male” and “female”. Why the difference? What purpose does it serve?

      Ponder this and reply.

      • Just the Tip says:

        Sorry but what does this have to do with Mike’s post or with the denial of equal marriage rights for all?

  70. Mike Hind says:

    “Human rights. Where did they come from? It seems to me the basis of your claim to SSM is based on the logic of your human right. It seems that “rights” come from abstract reason. (See insert below).”

    You’d be incorrect. The “basis of my claim to SSM” – an odd way to say it – would be that some folks have them and others don’t, and the restriction is based on nothing. This isn’t fair.

    “Human rights, rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals simply for being human, or as a consequence of inherent human vulnerability, or because they are requisite to the possibility of a just society. Whatever their theoretical justification, human rights refer to a wide continuum of values or capabilities thought to enhance human agency or protect human interests and declared to be universal in character, in some sense equally claimed for all human beings, present and future.”

    I’ve never said that it’s about human rights. I’ve said repeatedly that it’s about equal rights. These rights and privileges are granted to some, but not others.
    Supporters of continuing this inbalance have been asked many, many times for an argument against ending this restriction or a reason to continue it. They’ve never given a valid one that hasn’t been shown to be wrong.

    “Human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning.

    Notice the words “wide continuum of values or capabilities” (2nd paragraph), and “abstract reasoning” (3rd paragraph).

    I therefore postulate that we are “moral” being by nature. We cannot escape making decisions in life without first making a “moral” judgement. So the SSM decision is a moral one. Logic based upon a moral rational or a perceived value.

    Now we must reason, of all that exist in this world “mankind” is distinct and is at the apex of it all, why? Surely there must be a designer. Why was it designed this way? What is the purpose of our existence?”

    OH! You’re a creationist!

    Sorry. You’re basing your thinking on religion. That’s a personal choice and not something everyone has to follow or believe in.
    “Surely there must be a designer”.
    This cannot be stated without evidence. This cannot be used as an argument without evidence.
    I’m sorry, but throwing things without any sort of validation into a fact-based discussion isn’t fair and it’s not honest.

    “I believe if you “truly” answer these questions, and not reject them because you want to deny what they suggest, you will acknowledge everything that exist is subject to some “being” (life), and not some “thing” (non-life). You can’t get life from non-life. It is illogical!”

    The questions are “Why was it designed this way? What is the purpose of our existence?”

    I “truly” answer like this.
    We weren’t designed. The burden of proof of design is on you, as I can’t prove a negative.
    If you can show some proof that we were designed, then maybe the question will be valid, but until then, it MUST be rejected.

    As for the purpose of existence? I don’t know. I can’t speak for you, but the purpose of MY existence is to lead as happy and joy-filled life as I possibly can, without harming other people as best I can.
    Part of that happiness and joy is trying to make sure that those around me are – as best as I can help – leading a happy and joy-filled life.

    Isn’t that enough?

    “Some “one” had to establish the order.”

    No. They didn’t. You have to show some proof of this. If you don’t, it must be dismissed.

    “Human beings are “male” and “female”. Why the difference? What purpose does it serve?

    Ponder this and reply.”

    And here we have the procreation argument, which has been addressed repeatedly.

    Procreation is NOT a stipulation for marriage and a lack of ability to procreate is not a restriction.


    Do you have an ACTUAL argument against SSM?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Now, let’s see if there will be a real response or if it’ll be par for the course…

    • Mike Hind says:

      As expected.

      Hit and run posting of misinformation and no response.

      I love how they always do this, then complain that I “always have to have the last word”…


Sign Up For Our Free Email Newsletters


Latest Bernews Current Affairs Podcasts