24 Hour Poll Results On Same Sex Marriage
[Updated] The topic of same sex marriage has been in the news recently, with petitions circulating online both in support of same sex marriage as well as opposing it.
Over 20 countries have approved same-sex marriage including Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, Britain, Luxembourg, Ireland and the USA.
Bermuda presently prohibits same sex marriage, however that appears set to be tested in the Courts, with lawyer Mark Pettingill preparing to take a case aiming to allow two gay people to marry in Bermuda to Court.
The couple filed an official notice with the Registrar General, and following that Home Affairs Minister Michael Fahy said the application made to the Registrar General “remains under review but the public should recall the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974 makes it clear that a marriage other than between a man and a woman is void.”
Screenshot from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974 [PDF]
Same sex couples achieved a victory in Court last month when Chief Justice Ian Kawaley handed down a decision in the Supreme Court which paves the way for non-Bermudian same-sex partners of Bermudians to be granted rights to live and work in Bermuda.
The legal case was brought by the Bermuda Bred Company, which was formed by a group of ‘born and bred’ Bermudians in order to “challenge the manner in which their bi-national families were being unfavourably treated by Bermuda’s immigration laws.”
The ruling said, “Because same sex marriage was neither possible nor recognised under existing Bermudian law, the relevant statutory provisions discriminated against Bermudians in stable same-sex relationships in an indirect way.”
The decision in the Bermuda Bred case is set to take effect on 29 February 2016.
Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legal In Bermuda?
- Yes (57%, 4,375 Votes)
- No (42%, 3,199 Votes)
- None Of The Above (1%, 53 Votes)
Total Voters: 7,614
Loading ...
The poll — which is completely unscientific and should be taken as such — will close in 24 hours, as of 9am on Tuesday, and we will then post the results.
Update: If you had an issue voting our apologies, we think we amended the situation and all should be fine as of 10.40am!
Update Jan 5, 9.15am: The poll has closed, and the results are below:
sick to death with this topic. consenting adults who are not siblings or offspring, mentally vulnerable should be allowed to marry and be afforded all the rights that the law provides. end of.
Marriage is not the official love license. People can love nowadays who they want without being married, no ducking stool. Its not a crime to be adulterous. The law is not discriminating, as homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry under the same conditions: be unmarried (or divorced), no close relatives, man and women, both of legal age (or if between 16 and 18 with parental consent). Love is not a condition nor a decent reason to marry. There are other reasons to marry, most of which can be achieved without marriage. That is why I would support some tax, inheritance, and insurance breaks for registered living-arrangements. No need to change the last name of one of them or to call it Marriage, which culturally was reserved for husband and wife, to protect the family with its offspring.
But why should there be the addendum of “man and woman”?
Oh, and the “offspring” argument has been put to bed.
The ability to procreate is not a stipulation for nor a restriction against marriage.
Therefore, that doesn’t come into the subject.
Do you have a reason why people SHOULDN’T be allowed to call it a marriage?
It’s not an exclusively religious term, as atheists can get married.
Why shouldn’t they be allowed to call it a marriage?
Most children in Bermuda are raised by biological parents.
This will always be the majority way of the traditional family unit.
However, many children are reared equally well in different types of households.Equality of parenting in our complicated world is determined by parenting skills and capacity for love and not by the number, gender, age or sexual orientation of parents. Each and every family is distinct and Bermuda’s laws and constitution should support and recognize these different realities and do so equally.
that is actually not true every study done so far on the differences between heterosexual and homosexual parents have shown dramatic changes in the behavioral stability of the children under homosexual couples.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/children-same-sex-parents-are-healthier-study-n149901
You should refrain from using terms like ‘every study’, it makes it too easy to discredit you with a single Google search.
you are correct i should not have said every study. I should have said every proper study; the study done in Australia which you reference was rather a poll of parents not the children effected,
“Homosexual activists have been jubilant and have engaged in a public relations campaign, conveniently blurring the lines between fact and fiction. For instance, the activists imply that children actually participated when, in fact, the parents answered for the children and the children had no involvement in the responses. Further, any stigma reported was perceived by the parents as well. Is anyone surprised that the homosexual parents reported that their children are happier and healthier than children in heterosexual families?
Then, there are the questions about the study’s methodology. The authors advertised in homosexual publications and on websites to get participants; it was not a random sample. The study participants knew before going into the study that its purpose was to make homosexual parenting look successful. All of these factors made it difficult, if not impossible, to accurately assess the study’s findings.”
http://spectator.org/articles/60001/what-about-australian-study-about-same-sex-parenting
And the study you cite has been denounced repeatedly, as well.
So…
What’s the argument to continue denying our fellow citizens equal rights under the law again?
Have you made one?
Where has my study been denounced go ahead provide one valid resource
Will do.
As soon as you respond to my repeated requests.
The INSTANT you do that, I will paste the link to the MANY scientists that have written opposition to your study.
Until then, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
What’ll it be? It’s up to you.
Connor, definitely not true – as True Lies points out the University of Melbourne’s study showed that children of same sex couples actually fared better than those of opposite sex couples.
The only “negative” is that these children were potentially the target of homophobic bullying but that’s the fault of the people doing the bullying, not the parents
The first scholarly site I went to disagrees with you: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v32n02_02
You are not presenting a study but a review of slected studies;
This study
presents a meta-analysis of the existing research and focuses on the developmental
outcomes and quality of parent–child relationships among children
raised by gay and lesbian parents. A total of 19 studies were used for the
analysis and included both child and parent outcome measures addressing
six areas.
Not to mention that your study is also from 2008 is there no more recent research that might prove your point?
All things being equal, a meta-analysis is generally considered to be more scientifically rigorous than a single study.
A lie. I wonder how many will be posted on this page by you.
And I wonder how many times you will post the same one.
And, for all these posts, not once will you answer the simple question of “Why?”
Why oppose this?
i have given you very clear answers actually.same sex marriage produces a society harmful to the rearing of children because it further in courages the destruction of the healthy family unit. every child has a better chance with both a mother and a father. not to say that homosexual parents are bad people, they are not but they cannot provide what both a mother and a father provide
love, support, encouragement, a good moral compass, guidance….etc…
I think they are just as capable of doing that as anyone, or are you discriminating now?
I wish I was the child of two loving same sex people instead of divorced parents, one of whom would always put down the other. This has done more damage to me than anything else.
Absolute nonsense Connor.
Being parents is not a requirement of marriage.
Connor, how will it encourage the destruction of the healthy family unit? It’s not going to impact any existing family (or potential hetero family). And the only way it’ll impact your family is if you or your spouse is gay.
So how will it have the negative impact on the “healthy family unit”?
so all the broken families in BDA who started out as male-female units are better for the child? 4 babies with 4 baby momma’s, thats good?
Why haven’t you provided proof as to your comment towards Connors post? You claim that his posting spoken against. I just see you on the attack.
Wether or not someone agrees with you or doesn’t see things the way you do gives no license for harshness. If you disagree than give valid proof for it before you try to shoot down someone else’s information.
I did. Several times.
You realize that just about ‘every study’ you are talking about come from predominantly Christian institutions that have been debunked by peer review and analysis of the study methods. Highlighting methods used are often not of sound scientific methods, but are done on the basis of producing results to meet a predefined conclusive statement. Most unbiased true sociology studies on the matter surmise that the most critical factor for producing a successful and well adjusted child comes from a strong and supportive family evinronment with no real destiction on the defining family structure… just supportive.
The study done was research funded by a university with no religious affiliation. But feel free to provide the source where my resource was debunked
Name your unbiased resources why can you guys not give a real source i gave one now if you want debate it with real research not just words
The study was commissioned and funded by conservative think tank and organizartions Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation, it has come under considerable criticism from peers at UT and other universities across the US and medical organizations, including the American Psychological Association, and among the issues with it methodology was that it focused on children from unstable same sex relationships or would consider children to be from same sex relationships where one of the parents may have had a same sex encounter during the child’s raising. The study’s author even admits that he did not focus on stable same sex relationships and in 2014 it was questioned the he possibly violated the University’s research ethics standards. With the peer review process, there had only been a 6 week period from submission to publication, where most similar papers are given up to a year of review and that among the 6 reviewers, one had been a consultant on the study, and 3 of them openly admit opposition to same sex marriage.
It’ll be interesting to see the response to this.
And thank you for this. You wrote it far better than I would have.
If you believe that the study i have given is invalid and conducted poorly provide a study done more recently and in a more proper manner that has different results
furthermore the study done included children from struggling same sec couples because many same sex couples are struggling would it be right to only include the successful same sex partnerships?
This makes no sense.
Providing another study (which people have done) or not will have no effect on the validity of the one you showed.
Why not address the critique?
Why this evasion?
Your on the ropes and it is demeaning and false to suggest that ‘many same sex couples are struggling’ to defend a fundementally flawed study that was by all account done for the purpose of a biased pre conclusion. As for other studies, why don’t you look them up, have I got to do all your work for you?
“Equality of parenting in our complicated world is determined by parenting skills and capacity for love and not by the number, gender, age or sexual orientation of parents.”
This sounds warm and sweet. Unfortunately, there is zero evidence of this. This disagrees with how we know human beings work. The biology isn’t merely incidental.
There is plenty of evidence of this.
Come on. At least TRY to be honest.
Oh! And parenting isn’t a stipulation for marriage, so it’s an irrelevant point.
When the ability to have children is a necessity for marriage, you might have a point. Until then, this argument is nothing more than a distraction.
Do you have an ACTUAL argument against Same Sex Marriage?
You fail to provide the same evidence you demand of others. Strange that…
You continue to say that parenting isn’t a stipulation for marriage despite nobody arguing that it is. However government has recognized that the union of a man and woman is the only one able to even potentially produce kids. Therefore to encourage men and women, mothers and fathers to stick around and raise their kids which best serves all of society, they have been involved in the marriage business.
The most ideal structure by which we achieve this is promoting strong marriages.
But this ideal structure is not a requirement for marriage.
Remember we’re talking about whether same sex marriage should be legal.
Your “argument” is that gay couples aren’t the ideal structure for raising kids.
My counter to this is the above. The ideal structure for raising kids is not a requirement for marriage, so how is this an argument against same sex marriage.
And that is where the conversation ends. You and those on your side never go any further and explain how it is. You just repeat your argument. This isn’t discussion and its not fair.
Agreed that parenting is not a requirement for marriage but Connor won’t give up on the topic. He (and others) seem to feel that this is the trump card to end all trump cards when it has nothing to do with the topic. But then we all know that kids would be better off in an orphanage or being bounced around from foster home to foster home than being placed with loving same sex parents. That’s the only conclusion I can draw from his comments.
where isn your evidence then if there is plenty please quote some
You’ve been shown many, many studies with evidence of this.
It doesn’t fit your agenda, so you ignore it.
Any chance of an actual argument from you?
Go ahead where are the studies why cant you just add the link are you really that afraid that you cant repost the link for some of us who have agendas
Will do. Look up thread for the contitions.
I absolutely CAN post links.
Can you say the same about your argument against allowing same sex marriage?
Will you give us one?
The “man and woman” part isn’t an “addendum”. It’s part of the essence of what marriage is.
The “offspring argument” has not been put to bed at all. Pretending like marriage as a concept and social institution has *nothing* to do with the raising of society’s children flies in the face of common sense. It necessarily “comes into the subject.”
Marriage is not a religious term – agreed. Marriage is for people, all people, regardless of race, religion or creed.
Gender complementariness is at the essence of marriage because marriage is indeed the best institution for bearing and raising our children. This is a big part of why you shouldn’t call any and every adult romantic relationship a marriage.
MPP, you keep trying to push this, but it’s simply not correct.
The ability to have children is NOT a legal part of marriage. It simply isn’t.
Your argument is completely incorrect.
Bearing and raising children is NOT “at the essence of marriage”. It’s just not.
You are, quite simply, incorrect.
I don’t know how to make it clearer.
Nowhere in law does it say that people have to be able to have children.
And as for it being an addendum…
It’s not in the Marriage Act. It’s in the Matrimonial Clauses Act.
It’s not actually “part of the essence of what marriage is.”
But here’s the thing!
It can be all of these things you claim. It can be all about bearing and raising our children. It can be all about men and women and “gender complementariness [sic]“.
To you. It doesn’t have to be for anyone else.
That’s the entire point.
Unless you have an actual argument that is valid and based in reality and facts, then you are pushing your view of marriage onto other people’s relationship and that is simply not fair and is what people are fighting against.
The opposite – as is argued so often – is not true.
Supporters of Marriage Equality aren’t trying to change anyone else’s marriage.
Removing the clause from the Marital Clauses Act won’t affect anyone else’s marriage.
And, unless you can prove otherwise, you will continue to be incorrect.
that may be true that legally speaking there is no precedent for the relevancy of bearing and/or raising children with that of marriage.
however, what is the purpose of law?
to govern society in a way that keeps it alive flourishing and in order, while protection the rights and wellfare of every citizen
thus it is only logical that in order to protect the order of society and especially to defend the children of said society there must be laws in place to create as natural an atmosphere for child raising as possible
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/june/gay-parenting-could-negatively-impacts-kids/?mobile=false
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
“that may be true that legally speaking there is no precedent for the relevancy of bearing and/or raising children with that of marriage.”
It IS true. And that’s it.
Bearing and raising kids is NOT a stipulation for marriage, therefore this argument is invalid. It has nothing to do with it. It is not an argument against same sex marriage. It is not a reason that gay folks shouldn’t be allowed to get married.
Do you have one?
“…to govern society in a way that keeps it alive flourishing and in order, while protection the rights and wellfare of every citizen
thus it is only logical that in order to protect the order of society and especially to defend the children of said society there must be laws in place to create as natural an atmosphere for child raising as possible”
Exactly. And citizens are being denied equal rights. That’s what we’re talking about. That’s why this needs to change.
And you say “defend the children”…
Against what? How will same sex marriage harm them?
Oh, and “as natural an atmosphere for child raising as possible” is not a stipulation for marriage.
That argument is invalid.
Or is it? Can you show some evidence to show that it is?
you were given evidence in the comment above,
how about you provide evidence on how homosexual parenting effects the raising of children
Furthermore you wish to speak of human rights, the most fundamental human right is for children to have both a mom and dad. Redefining marriage is a step to destroying the reality that children need both a mother an father
Marriage does not require you to have children.
I think childrens rights should to have quality support, love, guidance, praise and encouragement.
Just having a mother and a father does not provide this.
Damn right, marriage doesn’t require you to have children! The fact is many children in Bermuda are brought up in single parent households!
This has already been addressed.
Why do you ignore that?
So your 3 websites all reference to one report that has been debunked for multiple issues from the purpose of its sponsors to the biased of it methodology and failure of actual peer review.
It would be great if you would respond to what I’m saying.
Our disagreement is so fundamental that when you re-type what you think I’ve said just prior in plain text, you include things I’m patently not saying.
I speak of “marriage” as an institution broadly defined for all of society. You keep drilling down on individual marriages with your objection to considering children in all this.
I have spelled out these points more times than I care to:
- Individual marriages don’t HAVE to have children or make any promise to EVENTUALLY have children at all, and that shouldn’t change.
- Childless individual marriages are full marriages in every sense of the word, legally, traditionally, historically, etc.
- Capital M “Marriage”, as a societal institution (and therefore a legal institution, in that order) fulfills an important societal function for all of us (big US, as in society). ONE of those is that Capital M “Marriage” identifies for us all the ideal setup in which we (big WE, as in society) should channel procreative love. That is into long-term, committed, sexually exclusive couples into which we (big WE) want our children to both be born and raised.
Kids have needs, and they need to be protected. They aren’t accessories for the fulfillment of adult desires.
Gender differences are essential to that, both in the bearing AND in the raising of children. Good government protects kids’ need moms and dads… both, for their best flourishing.
Our fatherlessness crisis is a crisis because dads are important. SSM tells us that dads are optional and interchangeable, which is a lie.
Should people be free to choose other family structures? Sure, and they are. All are free to love who you want, in a group of as many consenting adults as you want, for as long or as short as you want.
All I’m saying is don’t redefine marriage to fit adult romantic desires at the expense of what children and families need. Govt should protect both.
You’re still ignoring the University of Melbourne study linked above
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/children-same-sex-parents-are-healthier-study-n149901
Fact is that children of same sex parents fare better than those of opposite sex parents.
i already explained that your study was not a study but a poll offered to anyone willing online, Homosexual activists have been jubilant and have engaged in a public relations campaign, conveniently blurring the lines between fact and fiction. For instance, the activists imply that children actually participated when, in fact, the parents answered for the children and the children had no involvement in the responses. Further, any stigma reported was perceived by the parents as well. Is anyone surprised that the homosexual parents reported that their children are happier and healthier than children in heterosexual families?
Then, there are the questions about the study’s methodology. The authors advertised in homosexual publications and on websites to get participants; it was not a random sample. The study participants knew before going into the study that its purpose was to make homosexual parenting look successful. All of these factors made it difficult, if not impossible, to accurately assess the study’s findings.
“It would be great if you would respond to what I’m saying.”
I always do. It’s YOU that ignores what other people say. Not me.
But, to prove you wrong (as usual), I’ll go through point by point.
I know it’ll be a waste of time, as you’ll just run away (as usual) and not address the points, but… here goes…
“Our disagreement is so fundamental that when you re-type what you think I’ve said just prior in plain text, you include things I’m patently not saying.
No. I re-type EXACTLY what you’re saying. You can’t move the goalposts. That’s not fair and it’s not honest.
“I speak of “marriage” as an institution broadly defined for all of society. You keep drilling down on individual marriages with your objection to considering children in all this.”
No. I speak of broadly defined marriage. Nowhere in our society does it say that childbearing is a stipulation for marriage. Nowhere in our society does it say that people HAVE to be able to have kids in order to get married.
If I’m wrong, I’m begging you to show me where.
“I have spelled out these points more times than I care to:
- Individual marriages don’t HAVE to have children or make any promise to EVENTUALLY have children at all, and that shouldn’t change.”
Exactly. Therefore, it’s not a stipulation and restricting people because they can’t is wrong and should be changed. No?
“- Childless individual marriages are full marriages in every sense of the word, legally, traditionally, historically, etc.”
Exactly. So why the opposition to Same Sex Marriage?
“- Capital M “Marriage”, as a societal institution (and therefore a legal institution, in that order) fulfills an important societal function for all of us (big US, as in society). ONE of those is that Capital M “Marriage” identifies for us all the ideal setup in which we (big WE, as in society) should channel procreative love. That is into long-term, committed, sexually exclusive couples into which we (big WE) want our children to both be born and raised.”
No. Here is the problem.
This “societal function” is one possible “function” of marriage and, as you have said, just above here, is NOT a necessity. It’s an option. It CAN be this for people. It doesn’t HAVE to be this for people. Therefore, because it is not a stipulation, because people don’t HAVE to have this “function” in their marriage, it is absolutely NOT a reason to restrict others from getting married. If people don’t have to have kids in their marriage, why is the fact that gay folks can’t procreate together a reason they shouldn’t be allowed to get married?
Care to answer that? Or will you ignore this bit?
“Kids have needs, and they need to be protected. They aren’t accessories for the fulfillment of adult desires.”
This is… nothing to do with the topic. Of course they should be protected.
What are you suggesting they be protected FROM, in this instance?
“Gender differences are essential to that, both in the bearing AND in the raising of children. Good government protects kids’ need moms and dads… both, for their best flourishing.”
But… so… you’re opposed to gay folks ADOPTING kids? I don’t understand this, so I’m honestly asking what you’re saying here.
Are you opposed to gay folks raising their own kids?
Other people’s kids?
Where else are the kids coming from?
I’m serious. You’re opposed to same sex marriage because of this “danger” to kids. What kids?
If a gay couple doesn’t want kids, or is sterile, are they ok? Can they get married?
You keep refusing to show exactly how the kids come into this.
I am honestly and sincerely asking you to elucidate your position.
“Our fatherlessness crisis is a crisis because dads are important. SSM tells us that dads are optional and interchangeable, which is a lie.”
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t do that at all.
And, even if it does, there are many things that we ARE allowed that do this in a FAR worse way. Divorce, for example. (See? You make a claim, then give an example. It’s easy.)
“Should people be free to choose other family structures? Sure, and they are. All are free to love who you want, in a group of as many consenting adults as you want, for as long or as short as you want.”
No. They aren’t. That is the ENTIRE point! How are you missing this?
That’s the whole “equal rights” part of this.
You honestly couldn’t be more wrong with this statement.
“All I’m saying is don’t redefine marriage to fit adult romantic desires at the expense of what children and families need. Govt should protect both.”
I don’t understand this paragraph.
You have repeatedly refused to show what this “expense” is.
Can you please… please… show a real, valid reason to oppose same sex marriage?
I’m begging you.
And, before you accuse me of not addressing your points again, can you please address my responses to your post?
you do nothing but right the same things
man please do us all a favor and be original post some real information on how successful same sex marriage has been everywhere else
convince the people of bermuda why they should change the law to fit your definition and then lets take it to a real vote by the citizens of bermuda
You just use retoric but have yet make the issue that marriage is fundementally involved with child raising even if the marriage doesn’t produce children
do you really mean to say that after same sex marriage is approved as a step in equality these marriages wont also fight for the right to have and adopt children
it has everything to do with the children of bermuda who would be pushed aside so that people could feel accepted by having there relationship called a marriage
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
heres a small excerpt
The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have “ever been physically forced” to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).
Please respond to the post up the thread about the single study you keep referring to and the many, MANY critiques of it.
You hold other studies to a high standard, dismissing them left right and center, but this single one – that you referred to as “every study” – which has been debunked, you hold up as truth – and, in fact, as “every study” – without question, because it is a tool to push your false argument against same sex marriage: that the “ideal situation” for child rearing is a criterion for marriage.
It isn’t. It simply is not.
The rest of your post is nothing more than desperate mewling, trying to paint me in a bad light because your position is falling apart.
“I know it’ll be a waste of time, as you’ll just run away (as usual) and not address the points, but… here goes…”
As of 5:05 today, Mike, there are 452 comments on this article and 109 are yours. Nearly 25%. I don’t run away from you: I just don’t have the time to be a professional Bernews commenter. Do your thing, but don’t judge me because I can’t keep up.
I’ll do what I can, mate.
“Nowhere in our society does it say that childbearing is a stipulation for marriage.”
Maybe this “childbearing is a stipulation for marriage” phrase is part of our problem. You can’t mean that marriages aren’t required to have children, since I have agreed with this time and time again (even in the post you responded to).
Do you mean that Capital M “Marriage”, as an institution agreed upon across ages, times, religions, non-religions, cultures, languages, and countries was settled upon by humanity with *no* consideration of what’s best for children?
Wow.
How are you not getting this?
Because the ability to procreate, or even create this ideal situation you keep talking about, is not a stipulation, requirement nor criterion for marriage, it cannot, in any way, be used as an argument against allowing same sex couples to get married.
So… Do you have a valid argument against it?
I’ve figured it out.
Our issue is that you’re adamant that marriage should change when it appears that you have no idea where marriage came from. You don’t seem to have a true concept of why all of humanity agreed on this thing.
No wonder you can’t see why people don’t think it should be changed… your comment above shows that you don’t even know what it is.
Where “marriage comes from” is irrelevant. What it is now is what is important. And the things you are saying about it, insisting that the ability to have children together is a basis to deny people the rights and privileges afforded to others through marriage, are completely incorrect.
Whether it was originally like this, hundreds or thousands of years ago isn’t even moot. It’s irrelevant. It has no bearing on the topic of today. At all.
Beautifully summed up.
It would be great if you would respond to what I’m saying…
Mike, you to say that the historical definition of marriage is irrelevant for today. Well the historical significance and relationship affirmation included in the historical definition is exactly what SSM proponents say they want. Without its historical context marriage has no purpose.
And again, you are wrong.
What people want is to get married. They want to share in the rights and privileges the rest of us have.
Without its historical context, legally marriage will have the exact same purpose. You are making things up again.
Mike Hinds, extremely well stated, thank you. Impossible to improve on your words.
Essentially, what MMP is saying is that my marriage is not “valid” or is “less” than other couples because my husband & I choose not to have children?
If that’s what you believe, I suggest you stop fighting same sex marriage, which isn’t legal yet, and start focusing your efforts on senior marriage! Better yet, let’s make a fertility test mandatory prior to getting a marriage license.
If children are irrelevant in marriage, why would the government need to be involved. The government doesn’t promote any other consenting adult relationships. There is no national roommates act, or best friends act. Consenting adults are just that, consenting adults. When you insert the probability of non-consenting children you need a marriage license. It’s really not that hard of a concept.
Because rights are involved. Giving someone outside of your family the same rights as your family.
That’s what a marriage is.
You are incorrect, as usual, that the marriage license is needed “when you insert the probability of non-consenting children” that is not what a marriage license is for.
It really isn’t that hard of a concept. Why can’t you grasp it?
If the term Marriage was created for Men&Women, why not break the long standing term because being gay is accepted and people are free in their own skin?
Why shouldn’t they be allowed to call it marriage? Words change all the time.
Because separate but equal is not equal.
Being free in ones own skin is great, but that doesn’t redefine absolutes such as what constitutes a marriage. Changing the look and taste of a tangerine doesn’t make it an orange.
Being free in ones own skin is great, but that doesn’t redefine universal constructs such as what constitutes a marriage. Changing the look and taste of a tangerine doesn’t make it an orange.
again with the misinformation, this has already been addressed but just to give you a point, what constitutes a marriage was changed around 50 years ago when people pushed to have interracial marriages accepted, now it is a very common thing. this shows that the definition of marriage is not something set in stone (or on the pages of religious book) but something that can and will change as long as people are willing to have proper conversations about it.
Design says it’s about a man and a woman. A husband and a wife.
Although there may be many twists to the original design……it is very much still about the man and his wife. Every species on earth follows this basic design. I know the exhausted arguments of species that can change…..but naturally….man is not one of them. Without the assistance of chemicals and surgeons, special doctors and lots of money…..a man will always be a man, and a woman will always be a woman. A boy is a boy and a girl is still a girl. The perfect design still continues since the beginning.
There are those who are against God. They fight to discredit, disprove and just plain rebel against God, thinking they are pioneers…..or trend-setters……or even champions for a cause. But all of that still places our society on a collision course with God and His judgment.
Unless children are taught different……then know and understand that they have a mommy and daddy. Maybe that is why some choose to change the curriculum in schools to accommodate the earliest age possible. This charge to change law…….will open up a huge case of worms. After we are dead and gone……what world will we have created for our children?
Men loving men…..women loving women ……this isn’t about relationships……this is more about lifestyle. This gets right down to preferred sex.
Another religious argument.
Why haven’t you answered the question as to why other people should be forced to follow your religion, David?
Russia and China aren’t using religion and they still have the same argument…Male & female for marriage. All people are valid, but not all relationships are valid for marriage.
Nothing to do with what I said.
Would you care to offer a reason why gay people aren’t a valid relationship for marriage?
The same reason a man and a woman can’t have a gay relationship. The definition doesn’t fit.
What???
This is just… I can’t even… It’s…
That’s not even wrong. It’s so out there that…
Do you… How can…. I can’t even respond to this.
Gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because straight people can’t have a gay relationship? That’s just….
I can’t even wrap my head around trying to figure out the thinking that that is an ok train of thought.
And if they’re using “design” as an argument, they are, in fact, using religion.
Marriage yes, holy matrimony no. Get married in a field or court house but leave the church out of it as most bibles state marriage between a man and a woman. We don’t follow biblical law anyway so let the church people have their way and gays can go get married at government house or on a boat.
No church has been forced to marry people.
No one is asking for churches to be forced to marry people against their will.
Some churches don’t have a problem with it and, if you aren’t a member of that faith, why is it a problem if they want to ?
Yes you are, depending how the law gets passed, if it does, then some gay couples will want to get married in a church which wouldn’t be fair to the members of that establishment
No, you’re mistaken, once again.
And… um… marriage pretty much is, in fact, “the official love license”.
Like, that’s literally what it is. Seriously.
Why on earth would government care about who you love? Are you suggesting government sought to enact legislation on the basis of sappy romantic feelings? Surely you’re not saying that because that would be absurd.
The government has no interest in who you love. There is a very obvious reason for government being involved in the marriage business and for marriage being defined as between 1 man and 1 woman.
And yet, you don’t actually SAY what that “very obvious reason” is.
Why is that?
Why do you never post specifics?
Why do you never actually give a reason to oppose same sex marriage?
Why do you never respond to anyone that asks you simple questions?
If your position is valid, surely these would be easy to do.
I have many times Mike but you’ve chosen to ignore. The very obvious reason is that government is involved in marriage to promote the ideal that a man and woman will be united together to ensure any children that may result from that unique union will have their mother and father there to raise them. That is why government has been in the marriage business. I would be interested in hearing your perspective of why you think government has an interest in marriage.
Before you say having children is not a stipulation for marriage, I have not said that it is. It is in the best interests of children and society as a whole to have strong and enduring marriages.
if this is true then why is divorce legal?
Divorce is legal for the same reason people want SSM… to put the desires of consenting adults ahead of what’s best for non-consenting children and society as a whole. Adult desires led to the “no -fault” instant divorce laws. Two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s a lousy argument to say that divorce deteriorates marriage so let’s degrade it even further.
I haven’t ignored it, I’d shown it to be wrong. Every time you’ve posted it.
how can you say that th government is involved in marriage to promote this ideal situation for raising kids and then claim you’re not saying that having kids is a stipulation for marriage? You’re literally saying exactly that! To claim otherwise is an outright lie.
How can anyone have a real legitimate conversation with you if you’re going to lie and contradict yourself from one paragraph to the next?
This kind of dishonesty is not fair to people trying to discuss things with you.
Your premise is incorrect. The ability to have children together is absolutely and inarguably NOT a requirement to legally get married, nor is the ability to create the ideal situation for raising kids.
This is exactly what you are saying and it’s wrong. It’s not true. At all. You have GOT to stop spreading lies. I’m begging you.
HW or because the Government wants to profit off of marriage licenses.
Far from an official love license.
Marriage, love, wedding, are are exclusive titles given to the man and woman who join in an exclusive relationship before God and men for the purpose of Honor, Integrity, Love and worship.As a byproduct of the love marriage…..children are born. (I understand the variables of disobedience).
There are those that have entered into a marriage lightly, and failed. There are those who have tried their very best and failed. Then there are those, with the help and guidance of God, are following with understand…..what a marriage, wedding, spiritual union really are.
Not true. At all.
None of this is true.
God is not a requirement for a marriage.
You are wrong.
Again.
David, this is not about what your God says – it’s not even about what the Christian God says (after all, there are major Christian denominations that approve of and perform same-sex marriages)
It’s about human rights – nothing more, nothing less.
Blankman communist countries who subscribe to no religious tenets are sometimes the least open to SSM. Theology, history, biology, sociology and philosophy all speak the truth about Marriage. Religion shares in this truth because the male & female complementary is essential to marriage, but the religious perspective is only one view point.
You are spreading lies and misinformation again.
Negative David.
Marriage is a legal term of which two consenting adults are entering into a contract, holy matrimony is the religious part.
Also what happens if I don’t believe in your god? Why should your rules on marriage apply to me?
Family Man, all that can be said about your post is “separate but equal is not equal”
sick to death with this topic. Consenting males/consenting females trying to push their lifestyle on society. Free people with human rights still want special rights to flaunt the special lifestyle in the face of greater society. Every child now will be confused from what is natural….to what is unnatural.
I once had a cousin…..he was gay……a wonderful person. He died painfully from AIDS contracted from a lover. He died at the hospital, in isolation, alone cause simple human contact would have contaminated his frail immune system, when everyone was hoping for recovery.
You feel….you are fighting to open up one door for special rights…..but you will be opening up many doors. Doors that can never be closed once open. The fight is not to block rights…..the fight is to keep all hell from breaking loose after certain doors are open.
Grown men……coming to Bermuda to marry their young boy lovers…..cha!
You’re sick of it? Imagine not being able to marry the person you love! People must be heartily tired of it for sure!
As for the rest of your post?
Still no actual reasons to oppose changing the law.
Do you actually have any?
Mike. Trying to reason with such blatant homophobia is a complete waste of time.
I’m just asking a simple question.
They STILL haven’t answered.
Do you expect him to?
Any chance that you’ll explain what “doors” you are talking about?
If not, this post is just baseless fear mongering.
the doors are blatantly clear and while i disagree strongly with the argument given in the original comment of mike hind, there is something to be said about the precedent a change in the definition of marriage will give.
Already in the United States after the very recent supreme court decision to allow marriage to couples of all sexual orientation another set of cases have entered the courts
1. Cases in which several lovers(polygamy) would be able to get married
2. The legal issue of whether any individual or group who disagrees with the lifestyle shared between homosexual couples, will have a right to refuse service, such as churches retaining there doctrinal beliefs on marriage and privately owned buisnesses that may not wish to condone such behavior but may in the long run be legally forced to.
So… two doors in this one. (Odd that you’ve only got two, when they’re so “blatantly clear”…)
But let’s address these “doors”.
1. Polygamy is a separate issue and doesn’t really have anything to do with this. We’re still talking about two consenting adults.
But, to really address it: why is this bad? Why oppose that?
No, don’t answer. It’s irrelevant and a distraction.
2. No church has been forced to provide service they don’t want to. This is a false argument, based on a lie.
Privately owned businesses have to obey the law and cannot discriminate. That’s part of doing business. That’s just part of being a member of society. The “right” to discriminate doesn’t actually exist. Businesses that are open to the public aren’t allowed to refuse service based on sexual orientation any more than they are based on race or religion.
Are you actually saying that’s bad?
Any other doors?
so Bermuda should allow polygamy and a hardworking business owner should have no say in what and who he is willing to provide services for?
you see lets give everyone equality and then take away everyone’s moral conscious what about a doctor who refuses to perform a sex change is that allowed?
a parent who refuses to allow there children to take same sex education classes?
we should just remove everyone from being able to choose for themselves and have one been equal population
if two people want to live together go ahead but there is no need to change the definition of marriage and you have yet to prove why that is a necessity
As I said, Polygamy is a separate topic.
I know you don’t want to actually answer the questions posed to you, but derailing the conversation is not fair. Come on. Do better.
But, to continue being the example you refuse to follow:
“you see lets give everyone equality”
Do you not see what you’re saying here? Are you seriously against equality?
“…and then take away everyone’s moral conscious”
Wow. No one said anything about taking away everyyone’s moral “conscious”… You’re just lashing out now. This is nonsensical.
“…what about a doctor who refuses to perform a sex change is that allowed?”
Doctors that perform sex changes. They would only refuse to perform the operation on medical grounds. They wouldn’t go into that field if they were against it on moral grounds. This is a ridiculous argument. Come on.
“a parent who refuses to allow there children to take same sex education classes?”
Wait… there are “same sex education classes”? Are people proposing this?
This isn’t a thing.
“we should just remove everyone from being able to choose for themselves and have one been equal population”
No, to the first part, but yes to the second. Are you seriously against equality?
That’s what you’re saying here!
And no one is taking anyone’s choice away, except for the choice to discriminate unfairly. Are you seriously defending that?
“if two people want to live together go ahead but there is no need to change the definition of marriage and you have yet to prove why that is a necessity”
No, this one, I’ll call you on. That is an outright lie. You are lying.
I have REPEATEDLY explained why this current definition is unfair and discriminatory and, thus, a change is necessary.
But I’ll do it again:
It is discriminatory because it denies rights and privileges afforded to the rest of us and this discrimination is based on nothing valid. If it were, you would have offered at least one reason. You haven’t.
See? That wasn’t hard at all. Any questions? I’ll happily elucidate until you can wrap your head around it.
I offered my reason to change the Marital Clauses Act.
Where’s yours for why we shouldn’t?
Will it stand up to scrutiny?
Mike polygamist would say that it is discrimination to exclude their ideal when discussing the redefinition of marriage.
A. Polygamy isn’t part of the conversation. It’s a different battle. We’ve discussed this. Why do you ignore that and keep trying to push it? No one is pushing for polygamy in the same societal level. It’s not a part of this concpversation.
B. You STILL haven’t offered a single valid reason that we shouldn’t remove 15c and make SSM legal.
Would you care to?
Connor, you do realize that your statement re the hardworking business owner and who they will provide services for is exactly the argument that was used in support of whites only lunch counters don’t you?
Why can’t two siblings who love eachother get married? They are both consenting adults.
Incest isn’t part of this conversation and it’s kind of disgusting that you brought it up.
Oh, and siblings already have familial rights. They are, LITERALLY, next of kin.
They don’t need to get married.
Oh so because you find it disgusting I shouldn’t bring it up? Your whole arguement is based on if two consenting adults love eachother then they should be able to get married. I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy and the slippery slope this starts, it’s the same people who have banned homosexuality that have banned incest and beastitality. Now most of us should see incest and animal love as disgusting and wrong (my opinion it is) but there are a small few who for some reason don’t. If homosexual marriages are allowed to happen then legally you won’t be able to stop what can happen next. The way you see it as disgusting for siblings to have that love is the way people who don’t side with you see homosexual love, but it’s ok cause it’s you. Don’t be hypocrites
Consent.
Look it up.
The incest thing has been addressed on this page, too. Oh, wait… It was addressed in the post you responded to. Why did you ignore that?
There IS no slippery slope. This is just desperate fearmongering.
There is no validity to this argument.
Next year someone else will be sick to death with this topic again and wanting to include some other version of consenting adult relationships as marriage. Its naive to believe that marriage licenses are solely to regulate consenting adult relationships. Marriage is much more than relationships between consenting adults; it also often involves non-consenting children and has other far reaching effects.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=utph8ba8koo
lilly, that’s a very slickly produced video but it’s completely wrong. Fact is that children with same-sex parents actually fare better than those of opposite sex parents [see the University of Melbourne study on the subject]. The only negative is that the kids may be subject to homophobic bullying because of who their parents are – and that’s the fault of the bullies, not of the parents.
As for the “religious freedom” raised in the video I trust you know that argument has been used by people that didn’t want to serve blacks in their restaurants or allow mixed race marriages.
No one is advocating denial of services based on sexual orientation. People make cakes for and send flowers to and baptize gay people all the time. Discriminating against behaviors is not discriminating against people. No one would bring a roasted pig to a Muslim, Jewish or Seventh Day Adventist restaurant owner and expect them to serve it against their will. Serving people is not the same as serving behaviors.
Your analogy is wrong.
No one is doing something equivalent.
What they are doing, to extend your metaphor, is asking the restaurant to serve them, just like they would anyone else.
You’ve tried this slippery slope argument before, “daylily”, and been shown that it’s a lie.
Why do you keep doing this? Why the continual lies?
Mike when you run out of steam you call people liars. 10 seconds and a Google search will show numerous cases where the SSM issue is being used to fight court cases for every other consenting adult relationship(ssss). Recent episodes of divorce court and Dr Phil also prove the point.
Another lie.
And really? Dr. Phil? Wow.
where do I place my NO! I can’t find the vote site.
Nasty European habits.
Funny, since it was originally Europeans who introduce homophobia into the African culture through the slave trade/colonization
Ahh, African culture has been CIVILIZED for thousands of years while Europeans were discovering fire in the Caucasus Mountains !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only thing Europeans introduced to African culture was GREED for the country’s riches to enhance the deplorable European infrastructure and exploitation of the African People to build up the European countries(including America, which is NOT a European country)with FREE labor for 4 Hundred Years.
What a contribution.
Why so much hate? Don’t you get that your bigotry plays into the game that the ones in control want you to play?
How can you label History and Truth as hate.
SMFH
8-10% everywhere O.J.
So where is your historical proof that homosexuality didn’t exist in Africa? It existed in Egypt, hell they even married their own sisters or brothers.
That can be heavily debated and even scholars are split on that, but its is widely known that it is taboo and not WIDLEY accepted in African/Black culture, while openly and commonly practiced in the European culture.
We are talking thousands of years back(3000bc)and there is evidence of that.
3000 years back thats late!!!!!
You must be talking about European History.
3000BC is actually 5000 years back and the first emergence of the Egyptian civilization is only around that time… the first known calendar to be developed and used by humanity is around the beginnings of humanity evolving to a stationary living settlement around 10,000 years ago, still about 4-5000 years before the rise of what was considered the rise of civilization. When you look at the beginning rise of civilizations around the world, they all commonly started around the same millennia, springing up closer to the stabler seasonal cycles of the earth Equatorial regions, meaning that hypothetically, the rise of human civilization had more to do with geography than race… which likewise had to do with geographical evolution as well. The first calendars were also most likely driven by how geography played for the importance of their need, but I will leave you to figure out how that plays into your version of history.
The San people or Bushman of Southern Africa are evident of being in existence dating to 44,000 years BCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No OJ, similar tools used by the modern San people of southern Africa have been found in that area dating back as far as 44,000 years ago. Hunter gatherer cultures and their tools have existed as far back as over 3 million years ago spanning up until the start of agrarian culture some 12,000 years ago, and were present in like ways all around the world because of the first human migrations from Africa for over 2 million years.
The rates are the same. Only the consequences vary.
Just yesterday you were expressing disgust with what you believed to be heavy handed police actions. And yet you would support the way homosexuals are treated in many nations. Interesting.
Any evidence?
At the time of colonial European contact in Africa, there were African cultures that accepted homosexual practices, while in Europe it was widely and institutionally condemned. Remember, there is no one African culture, much like the rest of the world Africa was made up of thousands of differing cultures. The One Africa notion is a myth that has never existed at any point in human history.
Ironically, perhaps the most advanced country in Africa – South Africa – has fully legalized same sex marriages, and was one of the first countires in the world to do so, at a time when one of the greatest leaders of our time, Nelson Mandela was its President.
Onion Juice – have you ever been to a certain bar on front street? Where all the secret-gay-married-men go to pick up other guys? Go wander down there on a Friday night you’d be surprised who is accepting homosexuality
I’m not. I’m pointing out that the lies you post are hate.
There’s a BIG difference between the things you post and Truth.
Ha you f#@%!ng idiot homosexuality was never apart of the African culture do your research
Um… you might want to take your own advice before you make baseless claims like that.
Do some research.
Calls Mike an idiot… misspells “Bermudian”…
Bermudain said that the African community has always a part of African culture.
“homosexuality was never APART of the African culture”
I think he was basically agreeing with Mike.
That is why education is important…fml
Homosexuality is not a sign of being uncivilised. Seeing as though African culture had been around for hundreds of thousands of years it’s naive to not assume homosexuality was a part of any culture.
Your racial centric preconception for history is obvious in your ignorance to an actual global centric view of history on humanity and civilizations. Please expand your searches beyond the pseudo scholars of genie and his ilk as they only damage true research and any chance for future generations to truly understand how they can better our world. Greed, charity, peace, war, slavery, liberty, love, hatred, ignorance, enlightenment, homosexuality, heterosexuality, polygamy… these and more are aspects of humanity that have existed throughout history in every corner of humanity in every facet of our existence. You Afrocentric version of history is no more correct than the Eurocentric one because you apply the exact same editing mantra.
You state that the only thing the Europeans introduced to the civilized Africans was greed; but you have previously said the Europeans introduced homosexuality to the Oh so pure Africans. So, which is it? Additionally, it is unbelievable that on a continent the size of African, even in antiquity, there would not have been a percentage of their own home grown homosexuals. The sheer population numbers are against the probability of the whole place being gay free. There have historically been child marriages and polygamy, culturally and religiously accepted, happening in African pre European intrusion, that we frown on today, so why doubt homosexuality existed there too? Wishful thinking?
Apparently not…it’s as ancient as humans: http://76crimes.com/2014/01/30/21-varieties-of-traditional-african-homosexuality/
What is it like, being as racist as you are but thinking everyone else is racist?
You need to be schooled about the word, actually you can Google it, Black’s cannot be racist because we are not or have not been in the position of discriminating any other race from economic, social or political practices, only whites have been in that position.
So therefore I conclude that Black people CAN NOT be racist but can be prejudice, until we enslave, have superior economic power or abuse hiring practices, etc over another race because of their color, I will CONCUR by saying, Black people cant be racist but prejudice.
Now school is finished.
Wrong !
Rascism is
1) the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another.
2) Discrimination based on race
Perhaps you need to go google it.
Oh that’s f-ing classic. Really can’t be racist? Well f- me, I guess you haven’t walked down a street in Bermuda as a white person. Oh sweet pea you are a class act
Please enlighten me on your experience.. Walking down the street that is.. thanks in advance
Don’t let his hate distract from the actual topic.
Bigots like to distract from the main topic, so we stop talking about it in order to argue something they can control. It’s one of their tricks.
Don’t get tricked.
I guess you know nothing about African history. Are you that naive that you truly believe Africans never enslaved Africans ? Please go back to school. Europeans first purchased slaves from African tribes who had slaves of their own.
So oj , if two different prospective employers , one white and one black refused to hire you and instead told you that you were an illiterate , nasty black fool which one would be racist and which one would be simply ‘prejudiced’ ?
(or would they both be right ? )
I mean, I’d agree if this was America but black Bermudians have a different place and stature in society compared to black Americans. It’s not a comparable situation.
Obviously Kayla you dont have a clue about Bermuda’s social infrastructure. United States have Blacks in high society positions, wealthy atheletes, musicians, actors, etc. Hell, they even have a Black President, but systematically Jim Crow ideology is engrained in their society, just like Bermuda.
I like how this is the comment section for gay rights, and yet I feel compelled to post things like this.
“Blacks can’t be racist” is a baseless, ignorant and literally untrue statement, even if you follow the guidelines that is must be coming from a place of power that involves the discrimination of any other race from economic, social or political practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Uganda
You seem to be well versed in your history of Ancient African culture, but can’t seem to remember events from a few decades ago.
Selective memory. It is a very widespread disease in Bermuda.
That being said, I am not trying to down play the atrocities committed by whites for centuries upon centuries, or those committed by any other color or race, or whatever you want to call it. Unfortunately, “everyone” is guilty of it. Awareness of this generally depends on location, and if these things aren’t happening on your doorstep, for the most part, you aren’t going to know about it unless you actively investigate it.
But this is just my two cents for this morning. Hope everyone is having an enlightened start to their new year. Peace and Love breeds prosperity!
LOL – That’s the most ridiculous statement I have ever read! I suggest you need a bit more school yourself – open your mind….
” Black’s cannot be racist ”
You’re an idiot
Straight out of Dr. Brown’s playbook.
With all due respect, why exactly did you have to bring Dr. Brown into this discussion?
Tell that to the family’s whose girl were stolen by Boko Haram or the Rwanandan Hutus that waged genocide on theTutsis or the farmers slaughtered in Darfur.
So, the girls telling me to “go back to my country” “you are taking up bermudian jobs” “you don’t belong here you rich white b****” “with a silver spoon up your c***” isn’t in any way racist?
You sure?
fyi I am Bermudian! born and raised!
when did this become a race issue?
Just allow it now for goodness sake! It all boils down to one thing: if you don’t like same sex marriage don’t marry the same sex. .simple. failing that any one who opposes it can move to Uganda.
Or those who agree can move to Canada.
Mmmmm
You can down talk de African Nations all you want, they have enough sense to know a male and female is the natural way of co-habiting naturally.
Man click your heels together two times and go back to Africa
Damn Racist – sick of people like you in Bermuda.
What do you think about OJ’s comments on this post alone:
“Nasty European habits”
and
“Or those who agree can move to Canada”
It is quite obvious you are not sick of such people as you readily condone such hatred.
@lowe, nothing new, people like you have always been sick of people like me in Bermuda.
It’s part of Bermuda’s History !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duuuhhhh.
Bigots and haters? Nah. Bermuda has a long history of tolerance and even promotion of people like you.
That’s what we’re all trying to fight against.
Onion Juice has never been to Africa !
Natural? Please explain and show evidence.
I have roosters and hens, and the hen produces eggs.
Is that enough evidence for you or do you want me to explain it?
Yes. I do. That’s why I asked you to do so.
Please explain what you mean by “the natural way of co-habitating”.
Intolerance and ignorance abound in these homophobic bigots
Hey Mike, remember what Mark Twain said, “Never argue with an idiot, they will reduce your to their level and beat you with experience” and its quite obvious that the character that goes by onion juice doesnt have a clue about African History and certainly deserves the title of “idiot”
Most of the time, I’m not even arguing.
I’m begging for an honest response.
I never seem to get one.
Chickens are getting married these days?
What a time to be alive!
Congratulations to Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s daughter, Mpho Tutu on her recent, mixed race, same sex nuptials .
Reverend Canon Mpho Tutu and Professor Marceline van Furth were married in The Netherlands on Wednesday.
Tutu is currently the executive director of the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, while Furth is a professor in Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the Vrije University in Amsterdam, and holds the Desmond Tutu Chair in Medicine at the university. Professor van Furth also heads a project in South Africa that aims to improve the treatment of tuberculous meningitis in children.
It is the second marriage for both. While the wedding was small private affair, the couple will celebrate their wedding with friends and family in Cape Town later in the year.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu was a vocal opponent of apartheid and a proponent of non-violent demonstration. He was the winner of the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize. He was the first black Archbishop of Cape Town and is a long term supporter of LGBTI rights. Tutu married his wife Nomalizo Leah Shenxane in 1955, last year the couple celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary.
Tutu, now 84 years old, retired in 1996 and serves as bishop-emeritus to his former church diocese. Mpho is his fourth child.
Mpho Tutu is an ordained Episcopal priest and was previously the chairman of the Global AIDS Alliance. Mpho Tutu was previously married to Joseph Burris, the couple have two children.
You said all of that to support same sex unions? They are women, humans…..doesn’t matter the titles they hold. How can you be a spokesperson for a Holy God…..then walk contrary to the life he calls us to?
Serious contradiction. It would be different if no one else on earth read the bible. But to contradict God…..and influence men to do the same…….cha!
I dont care if Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King or Malcom X daughter’s did, does not change the fact the male and female is a natural attraction.
Doesn’t the fact that some men are attracted to other men and some women are attracted to other women dispel your notion that “male and female is a natural attraction”?
it really depends on whether that natural attraction between the same sex is developed or it is born with. Since there has been no evidence yet to prove that it is genetic and studies done on identical twins, who share the same genetic code, shows only a 7% commonality in both siblings being homosexual. If one is and the other is not then it would reason that one of the siblings has changed from the original genetics.
http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/06/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/
This has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
it is only in response to what people have said so feel free to comment to everyone on both sides how they change the topic
The topic is same sex marriage and whether it should be legal.
Arguing whether it’s “natural” or not is irrelevant and is a distraction from the topic.
How about showing an actual argument against it being legal?
@Mike Hind, so after our discussion on whether people are born Gay or not, the other day by chance came across this. Just found it an interesting theory.
https://youtu.be/HqKHDz7OBjI
Don’t remember that discussion. I usually just say that it’s not relevant to the discussion of marriage equality.
Are you sure it was me?
Funny but the studies I’ve seen don’t come up with numbers anywhere near 7% (of course I didn’t look to religious websites). The numbers are far higher
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html
“… monozygotic twins were found to have a concordance rate of 65.8% for homosexual orientation. … dizygotic twins were found to have a concordance rate of 30.4% for homosexual orientation.”
Other studies actually come up with higher percentages than those.
Your research is out of date;1993 really?
Title: Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets
Authors: Frederick L. Whitam, Ph.D.,1 Milton Diamond, Ph.D.,2,3 and James Martin, BA.1
Published in: Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1993
So you are basically saying that Same Sex couples are pretending they are only attracted to the same sex and you don’t believe they actually are.
Further because you don’t believe they are, you want to deny them the same basic human rights you and I enjoy.
Sicko.
every human should be treated properly but we are not equal every person is born with a uniqueness that no one else can match
marriage is not a right it is a privledge that even heterosexual misuse but that does not mean that it should further be corrupted by distorting what it is, a union between sexually complimentary spouses who live by the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency
i also do not claim that it is pretend at all. However while something may become a reality that does not mean it always was or always will be
Marriage gives rights and privileges that are currently denied to others. This denial is based on lies and misinformation.
Did you miss that?
OJ – male and female are a ‘natural attraction’, simply not the only one.
that is debatable
Not really. Not when one side of the debate uses lies and misinformation to make their point and evades even the simplest questions.
Not much of a debate…
Again, your personal choice of religion is exactly that. Yours.
No one else should be forced to follow it.
Or would you be ok with someone else’s religion’s rules being forced on you?
it is not about religion it is about the wellbeing of a society. As clearly as divorce negatively affects children so have the studies shown among homosexual parenting. not to mention what may come from the change in definition of marriage
Connor, no – children of same sex-parents actually do better than those of opposite sex parents.
http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/children-same-sex-attracted-parents-doing-well-face-stigma-%E2%80%93-latest-results
It is significant to note that the author admits (even though his fans angrily attack critics who make similar observations), “The self-selection of our convenience sample has the potential to introduce bias that could distort results.” Amazingly, Crouch also caveats his final conclusion; he summarized, “It is clear that there are aspects at play in our sample of same-sex families that allow improved outcomes in general behavior, general health, and in particular family cohesion.”
No. They haven’t. Studies have not shown this at all.
Also, divorce is allowed, therefore the “wellbeing” argument is moot.
I’ve asked this before if you, but you ran away before I could get an answer:
What’s wrong with “redefining marriage”?
And how, exactly, will it affect the wellbeing of a society?
Any chance of an answer before you run off?
I have answered several times clearly and yes the studies i have given you explain
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
if you would like to prove how this is an invalid source i am all ears.
Divorce may be allowed but that does not mean it cannot still be contested and hopefully resolved as a way of restoring stability to our children
Redefining marriage would change our society and culture as i have said most specifically for our children.
What is the need to redefine marriage? The government could easily enough ensure the euality of rights that you argue for without the need of a change in definition
“…most specifically for our children.”
Interesting choice of words… given that you’ve shown NO specifics. Ever. At all.
And then you didn’t answer why we shouldn’t redefine marriage.
Odd that.
Maybe you just don’t know how this works. Here. I’ll show you.
“What is the need to redefine marriage?” you ask.
My answer: Because the current definition is discriminatory against a group of our fellow citizens. This discrimination is based on invalid reasons. Therefore, it needs to change.
Now. If you’d like to show a VALID reason, then we can actually have a conversation. Until then, it’ll just be you spreading misinformation and lies.
Now. Any chance of YOU answering questions?
Mike, every definition of marriage will discriminate against fellow human beings. That’s because marriage is not a basic human right. But having a mom & dad is a human right…just ask the kids like Dr Oscar Lopez who was robbed of a parent because adults cared more about their desires than the rights of children. No heritage, no legacy, no family tree…Ancestry.com makes a lot of money because family & history matters.
So, no? You won’t offer a valid argument ? Thought so.
Three easily debunkable examples of bad parenting in the gay community does not an argument make.
How about giving a REAL reason we shouldn’t remove 15c?
Try not to use the same old same that we’ve shown to be wrong time and time again?
Come on, daylily. You like to post a lot. Why not post one honest, real, true and valid reason that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married?
Oh, and I never said it was a “basic human right”. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
And the discrimination that you speak of has reasons. Children are “discriminated” against because they can’t give consent. Family members are because they already have the rights.
Having a mom and a dad isn’t a human right, but, if it was, this right wouldn’t be affected because… And I apologize for the all caps… EVERY PERSON EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS A MOM AND DAD! That’s how reproduction works.
What they DON’T have a right to is a relationship with either of them. Which is what you’re trying to imply. Which is a lie.
David, your statement re same sex marriage being contrary to the life God calls you to ignores the fact that there are major Christian religions that support and perform same sex marriages.
Not everyone, including a lot of Christians, interpret the bible the same way that you seem to be doing.
The scribes and religious leaders also helped crucify Christ. There will always be people who change Gods truth to use for their own conveniences.
The natural way of cohabiting naturally..please clean up that grammar
You do realize homosexual behaviour exists in nature and isn’t exclusive to humans, right?
For those who keep calling it ‘unnatural’, not only do you find gay behaviour well-documented across the animal kingdom but there isn’t a time in history or a place on this planet where we don’t find evidence of it.
You need a better excuse for your hatred than three out of context lines in your holy book, especially when that book has more to say on advocating slavery and beating your wife. You guys sure like to pick and choose what you actually agree with from it.
I don’t want to get off topic but I would simply advise you to use another line of reasoning if you’re going to make that argument. It’s severely flawed- animals can also be observed eating their own babies too.
And yet, none of them can get legally married. So what’s the point f the “natural” argument?
And please remember, the “it happens in nature” thing ONLY come up after some ignorant person posts that it’s unnatural.
They don’t bring it up first.
Kayla…..Advocating slavery???? The Transatlantic slave trade didn’t exist in Biblical times and God actually delivered the Isrealites from the bondage of slavery. There are numerous scriptures on being free from bondage and enslavement. The Bible tells husbands to love your wife as Christ loved the church and laid down His Life for the church. So actually the Bible tells the husband to love his wife more than himself. Looks like your doing the cherry picking.
You simply cannot have an honest conversation, can you?
Ironically, one of the most advanced country in Africa – South Africa – has fully legalized same sex marriages, and was one of the first countires in the world to do so, at a time when one of the greatest leaders of our time, Nelson Mandela was its President.
Perhaps a quote from Bishop Tutu, another great African spiritual leader says it best:-
“We are made for goodness. We are made for love. We are made for friendliness. We are made for togetherness. We are made for all of the beautiful things that you and I know. We are made to tell the world that there are no outsiders. All are welcome: black, white, red, yellow, rich, poor, educated, not educated, male, female, gay, straight, all, all, all. We all belong to this family, this human family, God’s family.”
― Desmond Tutu
Common sense… loving someone and respecting other humans does not mean you have to agree with all of what they do or think. SSM proponents keep using this emotive language like equality, love and hate, but in many jurisdictions where SSM has passed, freedoms, equality and tolerance are the first things tossed out for those who disagree….
Give examples, please.
Because this looks like a lie.
What about anyone that wants same sex marriage can move to Mars.
Why should citizens of our country be forced to move? They already are. This is exactly the persecution this is trying to fix.
“Failing that anyone who opposing it can move to Uganda”
WAIT. Wouldn’t true diversity make us live on the same island, together, regardless of opinions? Just because we don’t agree on EVERYTHING, does not make us “old-fashioned” or “bigots”, it is for us simply a question of what is right and wrong. Your comment says a lot about really of the supporters of “Same-Sex Marriage”: if you don’t like it, leave! Well, we’ve lived and established families here in Bermuda for many years , including some sons and daughters who are gay, and we have NEVER KICKED ANYONE OUT.
Your first suggestion is that those who oppose it should go to Uganda? Why can’t I turn it around and say, “If you support it, move to the U.S!” But Mr. Will, there’s nothing wrong with those in Same-Sex Relationships. As there is nothing wrong with the current status of Marriage between a man and a woman.
We will live together in Bermuda, and you don’t need to leave. As I don’t need to leave. Above all this, we are one people. Let’s do this with grace and dignity, please.
Yes but I’m merely pointing out that those commenting on here anti gay marriage are somehow just deeply disgusted by it and I’m sure wouldn’t mind using force to end a same sex marriage. Some of the rhetoric is the same being preached out of Uganda.
I don’t find this logic particularly compelling. First off I don’t know about others but I have never said I don’t like the idea of gay marriage. I am saying I don’t think it’s in the best interest of society as a whole. I Love all people and have gay friends and family. I am not against anybody gay.
This is about redefining marriage. Marriage is an institution government is involved in as they’re trying to uphold the ideal of the 2 biologically complementary sexes sticking together to ensure any offspring that may result from their union will have their biological mother and biological father there to raise them. THAT is why government is involved in marriage- to uphold that structure which is ideal for society. Does it always work out that way? No. But that is the best model as proven by social science.
2nd- Can we apply your logic to everything?
And how exactly will allowing same-sex marriage detract from ” 2 biologically complementary sexes sticking together to ensure any offspring that may result from their union will have their biological mother and biological father there to raise them”?
Unless one of the parents is gay it can’t possibly have any effect on their relationship.
Nope. This is incorrect.
The ideal for child raising isn’t a requirement for marriage. Therefore this is not an argument against same sex marriage.
Do you have one that is valid and not based on a lie?
Couldn’t they just find another name for marriage. Seems to me that all same sex couples really want is to say that they are married, and have all the rights of a married couple. So couldn’t they give marriage another name, it would make both parties happy. Of all the synonyms for marriage just find one that isn’t really a religious word and call it that. Just as an example, as it may not be fitting, call it Consortium. the SS couples get spousal privilege and can tell any body they want that they are married. I really think that love is love, and it shouldn’t be discriminated, but if the conflict is religion, cut it out, take it out of the equation
Let’s call it ‘pending divorce period’ and we can all be happy.
Marriage is not a “religious word”. It’s a secular one.
The secular authorities decide who can get married and who can perform the relevant service – absent a marriage license issued by the secular authorities that church service is nothing but a ceremony with no legal import.
And there is no reason to deny any group the same rights that everyone else has.
And that religious ceremony is called a wedding, not a marriage
EXACTLY! How is it that people pass by ‘separation of Church and State’ without blinking or comprehension? Marriage is a legal contract now – not simply a religious vow. Atheists marry without the world ending too. Equal under the eyes of the law, remember?
this is not a true statement because in the history of marriage it was never an isolated government right but always an aspect of a cultures religion. In reality and if you wish government should have no authority in marriage not even to legalize a marriage between a man and a woman except for the fact that a heterosexual marriage benefits a society in the wellbieng and raising of children whereas homosexual unions and parenting negatively affect the majority of the children involved
This is completely incorrect.
Nothing in here is true.
You won’t even say how it will affect folks negatively! You’re spreading lies.
The lack of either parental figure aka, a mother or a father, has clear effects on a childs early development and decisions, how would you like me to further explain i cannot explain how the brain is formed or develops under such circumstances but i have provided you with all the information you need here;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
If you would like empirical evidence here it is i have provided it and will continue to do so;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
You keep posting that link, yet there is no “empirical evidence” on that page.
And you STILL haven’t shown how same sex marriage will affect people negatively.
Why is this?
Connor, not true – the church didn’t get involved in marriages until the 12th century. Before that it was simply an agreement between two people – no ceremony, not witnesses, just the two of them. And the original involvement of the church was restricted to the posting of the bans so that everyone was aware that the two were married. It wasn’t until centuries later that the church decided it was a sacrament.
On that topic, both the Catholic and Orthodox churches had same-sex marriage liturgies on the books for centuries.
But back to the question of whether or not marriage is religious – it isn’t because you can simply wander down to city hall, obtain a license and get married by the relevant government official – no church involvement of any sort.
i never mentioned the church you have i also did not state i was christian but marriage existed long before city halls or Christianity and it was not simply an agreement between two people.
These remarks are utterly false. At no time has the Roman Catholic Church had same-sex marriage rites. The Church has always viewed marriage as a sacrament, not a contract or an agreement, a sacrament. A sacrament can only be understood as an experience of seeing the living God in a profound way. It is in fact the state that tries to imitate this reality by making it possible to enter into a marriage “contract”. It is in the sacrament of marriage that a couple hopes to learn to love their spouse with a sense of total donation for the other. They hope to learn that way of loving in the sacrament because they believe that God is manifestly present loving them as a couple in that same overwhelming way.
I strongly suggest you actually study some Church history. Marriage did not become a Sacrament in the Church until the thirteen century.
And, along with the Orthodox church, they had same sex marriage liturgies on the books for centuries. [He might want to read about St Serge and St Bacchus.]
Well then… The point is proven. According to Blankman the Catholic Church already tried SSM, apparently they already learned it wasn’t a good idea so why repeat mistakes
Blankman…gravity, the planets and stars all existed before someone gave them a name. Marriage existed long before it was universally recognized as marriage. All over the world, in religious and non-religious societies people came to the universal conclusion and recognized that the relationship between a man and a woman that gives and continues life is called marriage…..and according to your post about catholic liturgies, it seems the Christian societies are the most tolerant because communist countries like China and Russia say a resounding no to SSM.
Not even close to historically accurate.
You might want to do some research into the history of marriage. You’d be surprised at what you find.
Marriage is not religious, it is a civil institution. There may be certain practices and traditions within different religions that are associated with marriage, but we are not discussing those. We are talking about civil marriage, which should be open to all citizens regardless of their religious affiliations.
Because “separate but equal” is never equal.
I am married and an atheist. Should I use another name for the legal union with my husband because I do not believe in God?
if you were to go back to the root of marriage yes, however i dont think that is the point here. Simply it is about what is best for a society and more specifically the well being of children.
How will it be bad for children? Or anyone?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
here is the information you need as i have provided serveral times
You keep saying that, yet nothing on that page shows how it will be bad for children…
It’s getting weird.
Why not copy and paste the section where it shows how same sex marriage will be bad for children?
Oh, wait. ‘Cuz it’s not there. Ne’mind.
Nonsense – the concept of marriage long predates religion. But the more important thing is that same-sex marriage does not harm the children.
in what culture or point of history does it predate religion? the Egyptians? Mesopotamian? Chinese? All of which celebrated marriage in a religious way
You are historically wrong but in any event it is irrelevant. Right now, here in Bermuda, marriage is a secular, civil law. A law that is being applied unevenly.
Any chance of you showing how it’ll be bad for children?
So marriage didn’t exist until those civilizations came along? But even if you were right marriage today is a civil institution and doesn’t require any religious involvement whatsoever.
And on the topic of churches and marriage, even the major Christian churches differ where same sex marriage is concerned. The official positions range from open acceptance to allowing the local pastor/congregation to decide to no-way-Jose.
Please share the extensive research you’ve done in this area that has allowed you to draw this conclusion. I’m not talking about a few cases here or there or a few people you know. I’d like to know a broad, random sample study you’ve done which has led you to this conclusion.
And you’re basing this on what? Robust, random sample studies show kids from all other upbringings don’t fare as well as kids who are raised by their married biological mother and father. This doesn’t mean other kids are doomed but they are disadvantaged to some degree. On this basis there is little or really NO reason to think that kids raised in SSM homes will fare better or even as good as those raised by their married mother and father. The ideal structure is for a married mother and father to raise their children.
So your historial argument failed so back to your procreation arguement. So what I want to know is, if procreation is so central to marriage, then why is procreation not mentioned at all in any of the Western Churches’ wedding vows? Not one. Seems a bit strange that something so central wouldn’t get a passing mention.
Procreation needn’t be mentioned in wedding vows… Something things are apparent and implied.
Procreation is an apparent consequence of marriage. While all marriages do not produce children, most do and laws are often made to address the preponderance of social behavior and not exceptions to the rules.
Nowhere in the law does it say that people have to be able to procreate in order to get married.
The amount of people who have kids inside of marriage is irrelevant.
It is not a stipulation, therefore is not a restriction.
You are wrong. This is not an argument against same sex marriage.
So what IS A FAIR STIPULATION for getting married? It can’t be just being human because all humans can’t get married. Is the stipulation consenting adults.
If approving the love of consenting adults is the only stipulatation for marriage then it’s ridiculous to issue a license for what 2 consenting adults already consented to. Is it just to give my favorite person all my stuff when I die, laws already exist for that.
Procreation may not be a stipulation or restriction for marriage but it is an obvious consequence of most marriages.
So what exactly is your idea of a fair stipulation for marriage?What do you say is the purpose and intent of marriage?….remember polygamist and every other consenting adult wants their right to express consenting adult(sssssss) love too.
The definition of marriage will become so diluted that it will have no relevance at all to anyone. It will be like the toy that everyone wants until it’s been mishandled so much that it gets destroyed and distorted and then no one wants it because it has lost its worth.
Here we go again with the false arguments.
“So what IS A FAIR STIPULATION for getting married? It can’t be just being human because all humans can’t get married. Is the stipulation consenting adults.”
This isn’t an argument against what I said. You keep pushing this whole “Procreation has to be part of marriage” thing. When it’s pointed out that that is incorrect, your response isn’t to show that it is, it’s to scream “WHAT IS A FAIR STIPULATION?” That doesn’t make sense.
But let’s look at your post and show, as usual, why you are wrong.
Yes. Being human IS a stipulation. Animals, plants and inanimate objects cannot sign legal contracts.
Yes, consenting adults IS a stipulation. We don’t force people to get married any more.
“If approving the love of consenting adults is the only stipulatation for marriage then it’s ridiculous to issue a license for what 2 consenting adults already consented to. Is it just to give my favorite person all my stuff when I die, laws already exist for that.”
First off… I’m not sure you know what stipulation means.
Secondly, no one said that the only stipulation is consenting adults. You made that up and are arguing against it… which is called a straw man and it’s not fair.
And yes, you are correct. Laws do exist for that. It’s called MARRIAGE.
“Procreation may not be a stipulation or restriction for marriage but it is an obvious consequence of most marriages.”
And? That has nothing to do with whether gay people should be allowed to get married. Or does it? Does an “obvious consequence of most marriage” mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to get married?
What am I missing?
“So what exactly is your idea of a fair stipulation for marriage?What do you say is the purpose and intent of marriage?….remember polygamist and every other consenting adult wants their right to express consenting adult(sssssss) love too.”
As has been pointed out to you many times, polygamy isn’t part of this conversation. No one is pushing for polygamy. Bringing it up is nothing more than a distraction from the topic.
“The definition of marriage will become so diluted that it will have no relevance at all to anyone. It will be like the toy that everyone wants until it’s been mishandled so much that it gets destroyed and distorted and then no one wants it because it has lost its worth.”
Nonsense. Allowing more people to marry won’t dilute the definition of the word in any way. This is sheer nonsense.
Mike you still never said what you consider a fair stipulation for marriage. You picked apart the comment but never really answered any questions.
Yes. I did.
Being human.
Consenting.
Needing the rights and privileges afforded by marriage.
That’s about it. What other stipulations are there?
(Please remember that kids cannot give consent and family members already have these rights… And that polygamy isn’t part of the conversation, for the reasons given above.)
Did you just skim or are you lying intentionally?
Interesting. I posted this a few days ago and yet today, you ignored it to accuse me of not answering the question.
And yet, you get offended when your dishonesty is exposed.
Hmm…
lilly, so you’re saying that procreation is an apparent consequence of marriage? Guess that means that seniors and those who have decided from the get go that they don’t want children are excluded.
But while your post refers to the preponderance of social behavior you don’t elaborate or provide any reason that same-sex marriage will negatively impact society.
SSM will be the worst social experiment of our time. Just ask the brave children of SS Couples like Heather Barwick, Dr Robert Oscar Lopez, and Dawn Stefanowicz who wrote Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. They have been ostracized and are hurting, where is there tolerance and equality. They say that they were treated like slaves, like a commodity which was manufactured bought and sold to fulfill adult whims…robbed of the right to a mom & dad.
Children are already being force fed hormones to suppress puberty until the child can decide its fate. How ludicrous. In Bermuda, the initial case that got this SSM issue to the forefront had to do with adoption. So don’t say children are irrelevant to SSM.
You are amazing, the level of hate you show.
I addressed these down the thread, but, needless to say, these three examples are easily debunkable if you look into them, and VERY easily countered with MANY more stories of people raised in same sex households than the three examples you’ve been fed.
Dawn Stefanowicz was raised by a man who was abused as a child and experienced depression and sex addiction. The problems in her upbringing weren’t because of his sexual orientation. A straight person would have put her at the same risks.
All of them also completely ignore the effects of the discrimination and hatred that gay people have to endure for people like you. That has a WAY worse effect on children than same sex marriage!
Mike, So, telling about the stories of hurting people (children of SSC) is now hateful…. You must be confused, I’ve posted against SSM, not homosexual people. Not all homosexual people even agree on the SSM issue. Using trigger words such as…lie, hate, etc. is a powerful tool, but people can see who’s calling names, being disrespectful and dishonest.
They sure can! YOU!
I only use the word lie because it’s the only word to use to describe the things you post. You know… Things that are untrue. Which you do. All the time.
It’s funny how you attack me for using the word, but don’t defend by saying you didn’t.
Your subconscious is showing!
Here’s a really good take on Heather Barwick’s essay.
Care to address the points made?
Only if the government of the day allows it , if not then no .
There’s the usual bizarre “it should be against the law because it’s illegal” argument. So weird.
Bizarre …. Thanks for adequately describing your way of thinking .
That was weak, even for you.
So your argument against a struggle to change the law is no because it’s against the law?
Seems to be what he’s saying.
Is it just me???? I am sick and tired of this topic……
Then legalize it and that will be the end of it.
Of course it should – think of all the weddings and honeymoons we can sell. This has big business written all over it.
Anything for a dollar… smh.
Why SHOULDNT we allow it? Do you have a reason for that?
We cannot allow same-sex marriage because of the negative affect it will have on the children who are as a social result led to believe that a mother and father are optional. The evidence that homosexuals can parent in the same manner as a heterosexual couple is non existent in fact the studies have shown much of the harm produced by households with homosexual couples
Such as? Why do you never give specifics?
Oh, right. Because you’re making things up and passing them off as truth.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
if you need specifics do the research i do not claim to have done it, i will not begin to specify something that can easliy be read written by professionals
Do you not get that the burden of proof is on you?
And nothing in that link showed the negative effects you claim are there.
Any chance of you showing some specifics?
(Oh, and the problem with me “doing the research” is that I can’t do that without specifics. Your claim is so nebulous, I can’t research it and, even looking at what you are claiming, I can find no evidence…
So… any actual evidence? Or will this be the usual?)
So no children out of wedlock, compulsory abortion.
If parents divorce, children must be terminated…………..Can’t you see the hole you are digging yourself into with your line of thinking.
I never said any of that rather i state that divorce is a social problem as well that needs to be remedied i do not give answers to those remedies however and i certainly don’t insinuate compulsory abortion
You said we cannot allow Same Sex Marriage because of the negative effect it can have on children…..Well so does divorce, so does birth out of wedlock…You want to outlaw Same Sex Marriage because of the effect it (in you opinion- I disagree) has on children, then you are pro abortion. You can’t cherry pick.
You aren’t married are you Connor. You certainly don’t have children.
I don’t think anybody would try to say divorce is a good thing nor have I met anybody who planned their life with divorce as something they would aspire to someday. Therefore I fail to see the comparison you’re trying to draw.
But it’s legal.
You keep saying that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they cannot create the ideal situation for raising kids… Then ignoring anyone pointing out that this is not a requirement.
This is another point proving you wrong. Government is NOT in the business of creating this ideal situation and the proof of this is that they allow options, such as divorce, that, in fact, do NOT promote this ideal.
Therefore, your position is based on a lie.
Connor, it will not have a negative effect on the children.
Children of same sex couples actually fare better than those of opposite sex couples. But that aside, there are lots of kids in need of a home – regardless it’d still be better to place them in a stable loving environment than having them bounce around from foster home to foster home until they age out of the city.
The problem is not fixed by placing a child with a homosexual couple despite how excellent of people they may be. Children have the best chances when they are provided with a mother and father anything short of that doesn’t address the problem
“placing a child with a homosexual couple”?
So, it’s adoption that you’re against?
And…
“anything short of that doesn’t address the problem”
What problem?
Blankman there really is no such thing as children produced by same sex couples.
While it is true that decent people can provide decent homes for children. It is also cruel to be so consumed with the desires of consenting adults that we leave out the natural desires most children have to be raised by a mom and a dad. There are numerous children of same sex couples who have been cast out and ostracized for telling their truth on this.
This is just nonsense.
lilly, gotta hand it to you. Those kids are so much better off being on the street or bounced around from foster home to foster home until they’re aged out of the system.
As for children of same sex couples that have been cast out and ostracized, please provide something to back that up.
But while we’re talking about kids that were cast out and ostricized some 40% of homeless youths in the US are members of the LGBT community (how many were thrown out and how many left on their own because life was intolerable I don’t know). Somehow I doubt that these kids came from same-sex homes.
Blankman according to numerous children, the LGBT community may be the most intolerant of children who don’t buy into their lifestyle for example: Heather Barwick, Dr Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz who wrote Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting.
Dawn Serafinowicz describes a childhood under a sex addict who happens to be gay. A straight person behaving the same way, promiscuity, depression, anger outbursts, suicidal tendencies, etc., would have had the same effect.
It wasn’t his sexual orientation that caused him to behave that way.
Heather Barwick had a deadbeat dad who left them… and admits that she had a good childhood with good values instilled.
Wait. Why am I engaging? You’ll just spread more lies.
For every Heather Barwick, people could show 10 kids raised in gay households who support SSM.
But you don’t care about that, do you? All these folks are wrong because you have a handful of people that agree with you. You show three, easily debunkable, examples and that’s truth.
It’s sad.
Mike, Dawn Stefanowicz’s book represents the stories of 50 other children who are against SSM. Of course, we all know homosexual people who are nurturing parents, I’m not saying that all kinds of people can’t help and teach and love kids.
I’m saying that SSM fosters an ideal that says that mothers and fathers are optional. Along with other situations, this ideology is not the best long term sociological dynamic.
No. It doesn’t.
It absolutely doesn’t.
This is just another false argument from the pro-discrimination handbook.
It absolutely doesn’t “foster an idea” that mothers and fathers are optional.
Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage. Parenting is not a stipulation for marriage,
Please try to find, and provide, and actual, real reason to not allow people to get married.
Faulk, don’t you know that our tourism sector is in such great shape that we can afford to intentionally turn our back on a huge market. After all, our hotels are always overbooked and we can’t handle the additional visitors that could result from allowing same-sex marriages. [/sarcasm off]
Like Monique said – you might not like it the first time. Just say no. It’s taboo! It is a vice, like all other vices that civil societies prohibit for our own good. In the end, the persistent a**-holes always win.
Any reason why? Or will this be the usual hit and run post, with nothing to back it up?
What exactly are you labelling a “vice? And why are you labelling it as such?
My view is that same sex marriage should not be legal. As a matter of a fact same sex relationships should not be allowed. Sadly our moral compass has been damaged beyond repair so I am well aware that we are headed down a slippery slope and we have votes and the Chief Justice to blame for that. This government should have challenged the Chief Justice ruling but votes dictate our moral compass which again is sad.
I suppose you would say the same for divorce then? The Bible condemns divorce more often than it discusses homosexuality.
Adultery is also ignored and yet Church functions are where all the “hook ups” take place. Total hypocrites in the fake moral high ground.
Can you back up that statement? or is it a one off story you heard and assume is common?
Well you tell me….where do all the single mothers who get pregnant yet spend a great deal of time in church meet the fathers? At nightclubs? Please….
Divorce is equally a destroying factor of society most importantly of the well-being of our children, however while that battle needs to continuously be fought it cannot blind us from another threat to the destruction of the stability of this society’s children who are both negatively effected by divorce and homosexual unions
How? How are they negatively affected?
How does you moral compass feel about women in Bermuda having children out of wedlock, males having children with multiple ‘baby mommas’?
I can only assume by your ‘moral compass’ you would like single parent child birth outlawed as well, only challenge is what can the punishment be? Fine, imprisonment, maybe termination of the birth should it be discovered in time?
I imagine your moral compass is pretty selective.
Any situation that harms the well being of a societies children should be fought against and if possible remedied, and hopefully everyone against same sex unions realizes that divorce is as equal a threat to our society as same sex marriages. However should a system that is already broken in which divorce becomes increasingly more common completely surrender and allow the further destruction of child raising by allowing homosexual marriage?
that is to say well we have already enough people addicted to alcohol we may as well legalize marijuana?
i am not comparing these issues simply the line of argument
http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/children-same-sex-attracted-parents-doing-well-face-stigma-%E2%80%93-latest-results
its still not a valid study, he surveyed parents not the children
I have never heard children of divorced parents make the claim that they are better off without both parents in the household but by its very nature both parents mother and father exist I some dimension. The children of homosexual parents have only exposure to either mothers or fathers which by its very nature implies that either a mother or a father is extraneous! Which role model is dispossable?
Caitlin, So you’re suggesting that having loving same-sex parents isn’t better than living in an orphanage or being bounced around from foster home to foster home?
The whole “it’s bad for the children” argument ignores the fact that children adopted by same-sex parents were given up by their birth parents (for whatever reason).
Why?
Why shouldn’t they be allowed?
Please. Give us a single valid reason. I’m begging.
Um becawse de bible says so. Right lemme be off to beat my slave and have sex with as many women as I can, hopefully the wife don’t find out.
So … we shouldn’t have votes?
Hmmm. If you need to refer to your ‘moral compass’ when choosing your partner – does that mean you are attracted to the same sex, but choose not to act on it because it’s morally wrong in your opinion? Otherwise, what does anybody else’s partner selection have to do with a moral compass?
The fact that our community would even suggest such a thing is disappointing,why on God giving earth shall we allow men to marry men an women to marry women,I feel sorry for the generations to come, growing up thinking that this an okay life style confused on witch sex they should be attracted to,and Lord have mercy upon us if there allowed to adopt
Erm no confusion…it’s pretty straight forward. If you are attracted to women YOU KNOW you are attracted to women, if you are attracted to men, YOU KNOW that you are attracted to men.
What is problematic, is that the laws disadvantage / effectively punishing one group of people.
Perhaps it is a test from God….do you punish your fellow human or do you treat them as you would your brother……God judges, not you….test results handed out at the end of your life on earth.
of course no one should be punished for a difference in beliefs or lifestyles however the confusion presented is very real. What happens if you were attracted to men but over time and with bad experiences your feelings change? Seems logical enough to follow your feelings, however, the largest rise in sexual tendencies is among bi-sexuality, especially among young girls, who psychologists state very often will describe their sexual orientation as “confused”
We are not talking about promiscuous sexual experimentation. We are talking about same sex marriage.
We are addressing the confusion caused to children through same sex marriage which you would claim is non existant
What confusion?
Please explain.
Why SHOULDN’T we allow it?
Yes, we should definitely discourage future generations from being attracted to the Witch sex.
I too feel sorry for youth that are confused because they are vilified for loving someone who happens to be the same sex.
Know I’ll get hammered for this… but not so may years ago “BERMUDAIN”.s comment might have read…
“The fact that our community would even suggest such a thing is disappointing, why on God giving earth shall we allow WHITES to marry BLACKS ,I feel sorry for the generations to come, growing up thinking that this an okay life style confused on witch RACE they should be attracted to, and Lord have mercy upon us if there allowed to adopt”
Think about it.. This kind of thinking was wrong then and is just as wrong NOW11
Hoooo-ra!
For the record, in the US it took the Supreme Court to rule in favour of that (Loving v Virginia 1967). An interesting point of trivia – the Virginia court that had ruled against the couple that wanted to get married cited the Bible as justification for their decision.
Witch sex? Lol I hope future generations at least know how to spell.
I thought the Witch sex comment related to kids learning to ride broomsticks.
Lord have mercy if the up an coming generation doesn’t know how to spell. Face it, this will become legal so stop opposing it like you are some deity that controls everyone.
Can those opposing PLEASE give a single valid reason why we should oppose this?
They can’t
Mr. Hinds, so I understand, how is it that you determine anything to be right or wrong?
What does that have to do with whether we should allow people equal rights and privileges?
My personal beliefs – or lack thereof – have nothing to do with anyone else’s life or relationship.
Neither should anyone else’s.
So your reasoning for how one determines right and wrong has no bearing in the matter?
Not in the matter of someone else’s relationship.
Are you saying that it is?
Odd that you didn’t answer the question.
What does how I determine right and wrong have to do with whether people should be allowed to get married?
Surely you recognize that the issue here is greater than rights and privileges? You have asked for someone to give you a reason why this should not be approved. Suffice to say, in your view it would not be RIGHT for it not to be approved.
My only question is (with respect); what process did you use to determine that your view on the matter is indeed the correct one?
Fatherhood, how exactly is the issue “greater than rights and privileges”?
But we’re still waiting for a valid reason – the “it’s icky” and “the bible says …” arguments aren’t valid and the “think of the children …” lines clearly fall flat. So give us a reason.
And again, you don’t answer the question. Why is that?
I believe that my position is the correct one because it ends discrimination against my fellow citizens, a discrimination based on invalid reasons.
That’s why I keep asking for valid arguments. I like to get as much information as possible when it comes to making decisions and taking positions. So far, my position has been proved to be correct because not once has anyone provided a real, valid, honest argument against removing clause 15c from the Matrimonial Clauses Act.
I ask and ask and no one even tries.
So, the process that I use is observation of new data as it comes in.
Ok? So, I’ve answered your question. Will you answer mine?
The current SSM position doesn’t end discrimination, it enforces discrimination against other consenting adult relationships. We are talking about redefining marriage, so all ideals of marriage should be considered because before the ink dries the next group will be rightfully fighting for tolerance and acceptance of their position on marriage as well.
This is ridiculous.
Of course SSM will end discrimination against same sex couples. What on earth are you talking about?
Because there are other possible variables out there that aren’t included doesn’t mean that allowing a group of people access to rights and privileges is “enforcing discrimination”. This is bizarre, even for you!
And when the “next group” steps up to fight for tolerance and acceptance, we’ll discuss that.
But we’ll do it then.
Continuing to deny a group of citizens equal rights because someone else might want them is wrong. Period.
Now… How about that valid reasOn not to remove 15c?
AND, you didn’t even remotely BEGIN to start giving a single valid reason why we should oppose same sex marriage. Why is that?
Sorry fella. I don’t watch the thread all day. I wasn’t avoiding you. I don’t blog much because it really just feels like noise to me. I’m new to this so please forgive me.
The truth is that we could bring any law into being and it may still not be right unless it is based on and ultimate, objective basis for deciding such matters. Do I arrive at my support of, or opposition to this matter on the basis of my feelings alone? If so, do I give the next man the same prerogative even when his view is opposed to mine? It may seem unimportant but it is absolutely essential, because many more issues are on the doorstep of this one, and they will require even greater justification.
A man may want to marry his 18 year old daughter. They are both consenting, age appropriate adults. If I take your view, let them be because they are not bothering me; but are they? Do the repercussions of this affect society in any way?
The methodology one uses to decide is just as important as the result because one day someone will want to marry their horse. Even though you may know this is ridiculous, your position does not give you the ability to rationally deal with the matter because any private relationship is off books for you.
So again, my question is….how do we come to know truth?
“how do we come to know truth”? That’s an open ended question that philosophers have been trying to address for centuries.
But, regardless of the answer, it has nothing to do with the question of same-sex marriage.
Incest is not part of this conversation and bringing it up is kind of gross and shows your bias.
No one is asking for incest to be legal.
So blankman thinks that truth has no bearing on the decisions we make. I find this interesting, because all we have then is opinion….no? Sit on the wrong end of an unjust judgement once, and you will wish the judge knew a little something about truth.
To you Mr. Hinds, I sincerely apologize for being gross. My comment was indeed gross, but I believe I’ve made a point here. The fact that you think its gross raises the question of how you determine it to be gross? Some think same sex relations are gross. Are they wrong on the basis of having an opinion that differs from yours?
The real reason I raise the question is because these things WILL happen if the definition of marriage goes unchecked. When they happen, will you be able to “discriminate” against those adults of consenting age who want to be wed; even though they are siblings, or share father/son relations? How will you be able to do it? You won’t, because you have not defined the parameters of what is principally wrong in a society.
A wise man once said..”be careful before you remove a fence to first ask, why that fence was put there in the first place.”
Open this door Mr. Hinds, and let the good times roll; but one day you will recall this conversation and have no response for the madness you see, even though your thinking was at the root cause of it.
Good day gentlemen.
One further thought for Mr. Hinds….if by bias you mean; “one who upholds only one view about a subject”? You sir, will have great difficulty excusing yourself from that category as well.
Good day
OH! You’re making the oft-debunked “slippery slope” argument, bringing in incest as an example of why we shouldn’t allow two unrelated consenting adults to get married…
Completely ridiculous.
You say it WILL happen. Any evidence of this?
Is there a movement to legalize incest? Is there a movement to allow family members to have next-of-kin rights in a marriage? OH, WAIT! THEY ALREADY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS!
That’s right. I forgot.
The rest of your post is logical fallacies coming down off a high horse of ignorance, desperate to rationalize your discrimination.
As for my bias? Yes. I have a bias towards tolerance and against baseless discrimination and unfairness. Is that a bad thing?
http://www.newspunch.org/mother-marries-daughter-living-together-as-leasbian-couple/
That story is false. Always check snopes.
Try again.
http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/2011/11/frequently-asked-question-why-is-incest.html
http://www.dennyburk.com/why-cant-a-father-marry-his-adult-son-a-mother-her-adult-daughter-firstthingsmag/
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/incest_qa_daughter_plans_to_marry_dad.html
I could find a few other articles as well. This will happen, and you will be called discriminatory for opposing it.
No. It won’t. There isn’t a movement. A couple of stories, cherry picked from the Internet, most of them false, is not a movement to legalize incest. No one is asking for it on a societal level.
This has nothing to do with same sex marriage and is nothing more than a fearmongering distraction.
It is not legitimate and it’s not valid and brining it into the conversation is not only dishonest, it’s disgusting.
You asked how I determined right from wrong.
I’d ask the same of you, but based on this horrific train of thought, you don’t actually know the difference.
Fatherhood, define truth – I’ve got an entire bookshelf full of philosophy texts that only scratch the surface of that question.
Truth is that which best reflects reality (short answer).
Posting falsehoods and misinformation like you are doing isn’t reflecting reality.
if Adam and eve was gay There would have never been life on earth. you want to marry the same sex move to a country that allows that don’t bring it to this beautiful Country . The lord created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve…
If you believe the Adam and Eve story to be literally true, how do you explain earlier species of humans?
This is religion. We have freedom of religion, don’t we?
Not everyone has to follow your religion.
Do you have a reason to oppose this that doesn’t involve forcing others to obey the rules of your personal choice of religion?
No but they created children who then had children with let me see, doesn’t mention anyone else in the bible so must have been a lot of incest going on there.
According to the bible the earth was populated via incest at least twice (the Garden and after the flood). And that’s not counting Lot and his daughters. So God must approve of incestuous relationships.
You and I are here as the the results of incest. If there were only males or only females….we would not be talking about same sex unions.
Er, no. We are not here due to Adam and Eve, incest, and all that. That is a fictional story.
Take a tip. Do not go around basing your decidions today on fictional stories.
Have you had sex with your sister lately? The bible says its ok to, so go for it.
Or sex with you mother, for that matter. All ok, according to the bible.
Why isn’t the UBP/BDA/OBA showing any leadership on this issue ? Why are they going shrew de back door by ex attorney general MP. MARK Pettingill and the Supreme Court ?
Another clear example of this governments way a governing by stealth ! It will be legalized , but in a cowardly fashion , laughable really , the UBP/BDA/OBA cannot stand egg on its face .
As usual, so blinded by party politics, you can’t see that NEITHER party is doing the right thing on this one. They’re BOTH letting us down.
But you keep making your cheap potshots while hiding behind a fake name. You’re a real example of bravery, accusing others of cowardice!
Last time I checked , people vote into power the political party they think will do the right thing according to the electorate in which they govern . Maybe this electorate isn’t ready to bestow upon SSM the right to marry . Don’t allow the UBP/BDA/OBA to ignore your rights , for crying out loud . The good thing about SSM is that whomever will choose to live that lifestyle and marry each other will eventually cancel out their very existence .
Yawn.
Why do you never actually post on the topic at hand?
Coffee, has it ever occurred to you that the gay people that want to get married were the result of straight parents? The only way that you’ll eliminate gays is if you eliminate people all together.
And what exactly is being done by the PLP.
Other than Bean’s foul and disgusting comments a couple of years ago….
No political parties had anything to do with the Hayward/Williams vs BDA Gov’t case or the Bermuda Bred Co case. These two cases were brought before the court, by the people.
The gov’t isn’t “going shrew de back door”. Get your facts straight.
This movement will fail, the UBP/BDA/OBA will never take it to Parliment for fear of losing votes . If you think it isn’t political , it’s because you are in denial . SSM will remain illegal in the Devils Islles as long as the UBP/BDA/OBA refuse to table it … Hahaha … Ahh.hahaha pay attention to how your senator dismissed it by quoting and presenting the law to you …
Coffee, not necessarily – Mr Pettingill is preparing a case to take to the courts as we speak – reality is that it’s up to the courts and out of government hands (unless they want to step up to the plate and do the honourable thing by making it legal today)
Because its not right that’s why plan and simple take that somewhere else not in Bermy
Marriage isn’t right?
Why is it wrong though? If someone finds something wrong but another doesn’t then who is wrong?
“Its not right” simply isn’t a valid argument for denying equal rights to Bermudians.
Ah. “Do what we say or leave the country”. The facist right wingers are out again.
It hurts me that a lot black people are so against this. It was not that long ago that we were fighting to be traded as equal but now we are standing up for discrimination. Truly sad.
Agreed – it’s ironic that victims of discrimination are in favour of discriminating against someone else.
Smarter441???????
Is it safe to conclude that you are black? That you equate slavery with sexual orientation/same sex unions?
Do you live in Bermuda? Do you equate being black with being gay?
There is soooo much more taking place with these arguments. More than meets the eye.
It hurts me to see so many people jumping on the bandwagon to support life that is against God/nature.
Still no actual arguments, David?
No response to questions.
Why is that? What are you scared of?
Blatant homophobia?????
Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals – that is, lesbians and gay men – sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility.
Why is a label attached to disagreement?
There is no hate speech. There is no hatred or fear from or towards the LGBT. People use the term homophobia to either gain support or speak of threat to their person when there is none. What you can call ….is disagreement.
The desire you have to be free to live the way you choose, is our desire to be free to live and exist the way we choose. There seems to be a conflict with labels.
What is at stake……as a parent. I would like to preserve the divine and natural blueprint of family and child rearing. The design has been passed down for the beginning of time. It still exist today. It’s under attack…..but it still stands today.
The gay life style has also been around since the beginning. But it has always been in the shadows or behind closed doors. It was shameful to hear of such things, let alone expose them to the general public. Such strange acts were always in secret because society accepted the general norm of sexual relations between a man and a woman.
So, no, then…
Tv and social media have made it like it is normal for same sex marriage its rreally not!!!
just think if your mother never married ur father or she was in love with another woman u wouldn’t even be here to send a comment on this topic. if you can’t see its not right YOU ARE SO BLIND. …SMFH
But my mother isn’t gay. What does she have to do with this topic?
No one is saying that everyone has to be gay. That’s a false argument.
Do you have any real reason to oppose this, other than “it’s not right”?
Or any elucidation or explanation as to WHY it’s not right?
Oh, and please remember that the ability to procreate is not a stipulation nor restriction for marriage.
Mike Hind,
You keep looking for a valid argument against equal rights allowing lgbt couples/same sex couples to form a union and call it marriage. The fight is to amend law so that the title/rights can be applicable not only for straight couples but the same fore same sex couples….thus allowing protection and rights under law.
Why not just simply call the joining of same sex couples a ‘union’. They are joined in agreement, in the eyes of men and state…..even in the eyes of God.
But you do know and understand that there will always be opposing views. I hold fast to the knowledge that God is……and We can not deny Him. Our nation was built with a relationship with God……are you saying to forget God and go after/support vile affections. Equal rights will mean supporting what God has already condemned. Who should I please…..God or men? That is the whole world view on the subject. Those against amending the law have the design of God as instruction.
Love the sinner but hate the sin.
But why?
Marriage is not a religious word. I am not religious and I am married.
Why should gay people be refused the ability to use this word?
As has been mentioned, you are allowed your religious views, but they shouldn’t be forced onto others.
That is what you are suggesting.
Why not coin another term? Because separate but equal is not equal.
But here you go with “God” again – you’re still ignoring the fact that there are Christian denominations that support and perform same sex marriages so it’s pretty clear that not all Christians agree with your personal interpretation of the bible or the design of god.
And then there’s the simple fact that not everyone believes in the Bible or God (any god for that matter). Why would you think that they should be bound by the teachings of your religion?
There are also LGBT who disagree with SSM are they homophobic religious zealots
Are they using the bible as an excuse to deny equal rights?
Then yes.
If not, then no.
Why don’t you offer a valid reason to continue denying people equal rights and privileges?
Mike you still haven’t offered what your stipulations are for marriage? Who gets to marry and who doesn’t? Who gets to decide the basis for marriage?
At the end of the day who will be discriminated against?… Will we all, everyone and anyone be able to get married? Wouldn’t that be lovely, marriage for all, anyone for anyone reason?
All actions have consequences, intended and unintended, what will be the in intended consequences for passing SSM?
Are you going to answer the questions or use your favorite intimidation tactic and call names?
I did. Read. Stop lying. I’ve done it twice now.
Would you care to show some ACTUAL consequences of SSM, please?
Or are you going to continue lying and then playing victim while evading questions?
“…what will be the intended consequences for passing ssm?”
Here. I’ll show you how easy this is…
The intended consequence of passing SSM is this:
Couples previously denied access to the rights and privileges of marriage will now have access to them.
That’s it. Those are the consequences.
See how easy that was?
Your turn…
such a silly argument -
if my mother never married my father, it means just that- they were not married. nothing to do with my existence -i am either a child of his or someone else or neither of them if adopted.
if my mother was in love with a woman – it means just that. nothing to do with my existence. biologically,i will be born to a father and to a mother although it is possible that i am not related to either women.
Stunned…..Many children of SSC disagree with your logic(Dawn Stefanowicz and the 50 children her book represents, Heather Barwick, Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez). It is apparent that all children have a mother and father, that’s precisely the point. After thousands of years of creation or billions of years of evolution, universal intelligence still makes families 1 male and 1 female at a time, who are we to say it doesn’t matter.
You do understand that sperm donors donate more than one sperm, you could have siblings and 1st cousins marrying each other. Children look for their biology, well loved adopted children often still want to know, who am I and where do I come from. Making both parents optional says to little boys you may be irrelevant as a father and to little girls you may be irrelevant as a mother.
Already debunked gibberish.
I can’t understand the fight for equality. Every human is born with equal rights. Or should be. In this day and age, all humans beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Now the fight is for ‘special’ rights. Special rights awarding privileges in addition to birth rights…..in matters of relationships. Special rights to go above what is naturally wrong in the eyes of God and men…….in the name of love/lust. Human rights, equal rights I understand. But special rights by a group to accommodate a lifestyle choice should not be pushed on society at large. What is done behind closed doors should remain behind closed doors. That way ….only God judges. But when you place compromising behaviors onto wholesome families and communities, the influence has the potential to undermine all foundation and structure that is needed to build vibrant societies. Confusion. Bermuda is sooooo smalll…..what are we known for? What is the product we offer to the world…..at what price? Do we change to please the rest of the world……or do we stay true to who we are? Big bullies require an audience or followers. Who is demanding that we follow? Where is all the special pressure coming from? Internal or external?
Another religious argument.
You are free to believe whatever you want, but it is not fair to push your religion onto anyone else.
People aren’t looking for “special rights”, they are looking for the exact same rights as the rest of us share. That’s why it’s called “equal rights”.
And we’re not “changing to please the rest of the world”, we’re simply trying to fix an unfair imbalance, where some folks are denied rights.
The only bullies are those that are trying to force their religious views onto the island in order to deny these rights to people.
No one will be affected by this, other than the folks that will then be allowed to get married and share a life together with the same rights and privileges as the rest of us.
Oh how wrong you are sir. This is not a religious arguement.
You are pushing your beliefs on society. You are doing the same thing that you claim religious people do. You’re pushing your belief.
The rights …..people already have. Think about it. We all are able to emjoy the same things without restrictions. Just that there are those that have a prefered way of doing things that stray from what is natural…..or that our society frowns upon. So the fight mounts with those for and against. You are demanding contrary.
As for who does it affected by this??? Everyone…..What we do today….creates our tomorrow. If we decide to open certain doors today….then what kind of world will we live in tomorrow. My children, your children, our future is in our hands/decisions. Most of society was raised with the understanding that opposites attract. That love relationships are with males and females….as a product of love….comes life. Lust now breeds death. Special rights can be convened via a civic union. Or if you must….a union.
No. Just no. Come on. This is just wrong.
This level of dishonesty cannot be ok.
You can’t post about God and how he’s going to judge and all that and then say “This is not a religious argument”. That is untrue and dishonest and not fair.
As for us pushing our beliefs?
How? What beliefs are we pushing? That people deserve equality? That religious rules shouldn’t have any place in legal matters? That using lies to push false, baseless arguments to deny rights and privileges to citizens of our country is wrong?
Don’t YOU hold those beliefs? Or is it OK when you do it?
Here’s the thing. What we’re “trying to push” will affect no one else’s relationship.
What YOU are pushing does. Get it? There’s a massive difference between what we’re doing.
Your last paragraph is just a whole load of nonsense.
How is everyone affected. You have to show how. You can’t just say “Everyone” and then not say how. It’s not fair. It’s not honest.
Then the “Lust now breeds death” thing? How?
And why does it have to be a civil union and not a marriage?
Would you care to answer ANY of these questions? Or will you continue to spread lies and dishonesty and misinformation.
Would you care to show a single valid argument for continuing this discrimination?
Its true that the argument is religious and thus should not be taken into effect legally speaking, however to address your statement;
“Here’s the thing. What we’re “trying to push” will affect no one else’s relationship.
What YOU are pushing does. Get it? There’s a massive difference between what we’re doing.”
This is also a complete falsehood because you drastically effect the relationship children will have with parents and each other. This legal change would result in a social atmosphere where children see the figure of both a mother and a father as optional to raising a family.
The studies i have already given you show clearly the harmful effects of same sex parenting and yet you would claim that what you are pushing for effects no-one?
Lastly and believe it or not equality is a belief it is not expressed by all people and nations nor is it a right,
how can two individuals born with different benefits and flaws be made equal? Unless you destroy the very uniqueness of both of them to create a uniform equality
“Lastly and believe it or not equality is a belief it is not expressed by all people and nations nor is it a right,how can two individuals born with different benefits and flaws be made equal? Unless you destroy the very uniqueness of both of them to create a uniform equality”
I assume you spent very little brain power on this argument. We are talking about legal equality. The same law applied equally to all persons. No one is talking about physical equality of people. Now give your head a shake.
More lies.
“drastically effect the relationship children will have with parents and each other.”
How? This isn’t true.
“This legal change would result in a social atmosphere where children see the figure of both a mother and a father as optional to raising a family.”
This already exists. Same Sex Marriage won’t make this any better or worse.
“nor is it a right,”
Never said it was. But there ARE rights and privileges being denied to people.
“how can two individuals born with different benefits and flaws be made equal? Unless you destroy the very uniqueness of both of them to create a uniform equality”
This is gibberish and makes no sense.
No response from “Connor”…
Same ol’ same.
I see the point that you are attempting to make (you’re not doing a very good job.) It seems that you think that because a gay individual has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, that they have equal rights.
Let’s see if we can frame it in a different perspective so you can understand why it is not equal. Let’s go back 50 years in the southern states, when interracial marriage was illegal. Picture a white man/woman in love with a black woman/man, respectively. Despite the discrimination they had to know they would endure, they want to be married. However this would be punishable by jail time. They are told that they have the same rights as everyone else, to marry someone of the same race. They have to choose between fighting for their right to marry the individual of their choosing, or moving to Canada.
When the Supreme Court overruled all state bans on interracial marriage in 1967, there was still many people who were against it. Now, almost 50 years later, those people are a dwindling minority. Sometimes change needs to be progressed before everyone is ready for it. If we had waited to legalize interracial marriage for 100% approval from society, then it would still be illegal.
The two issues are not even remotely comparable.
How are the two issues different? Is it because you’re in favour of the one but not the other? Or do you have a real reason?
Absolutely correct Mike. Separation of church and state has not existed in reality in Bermuda for decades. The politicians have avoided this issue for way too long. The only thing a politician wants is to win again at the next election. The perceived backlash from the church vote may have been true in the past, but today that is not so true.
People have left churches in droves as they find that too many are begging for money or that their teachings are simply not in line with reality.
The blind faith, the fear based preaching about heaven and hell is hardly nurturing to any one yet alone young people. How any member of any church could discriminate against same love is just counter to the idea that God loves everyone.
The churches are missing out on a huge opportunity to embrace Same Love. By embracing Same Love and same sex marriage they would be inclusive.
The churches are driving people away by their own intolerance.
YES EQUALITY. It is not only right – it is everyones HUMAN RIGHT.
equality is not a human right. It its excellent for each person to have the same opportunities but not to be equal. It is and always has been our differences which make us great.
every human is born with different gifts and talents, they are born unique not equal
where we are equal is in our basic human rights not that equality is a basic human right.
So you are taking your position based on a belief that gay people are inherently not equal to you. In other words, you are “better” than them, and therefore you deserve priviliges they can’t have, like marriage.
Got it.
Actually arguing AGAINST equality.
Incredible.
To say that no one else will be affected is a blatant disregard for the truth, and the Christophobic, anti-Christian rhetoric is hateful and intolerant. Christians have a right to their religious beliefs just as non Christians have a right to their secular views.
And yet again, you don’t say HOW they will be affected.
It has been said MANY times that Christians will be allowed to continue believing whatever they want, they just won’t be allowed to force other people to follow the rules of their personal choice of religion.
Isn’t there a structure against dishonesty in there?
Why aren’t you following it?
Mike, We all make religious arguments. We either worship the creation (self), or the creator. One of the laws of physics says energy is neither created nor destroyed… all the energy here was produced as an extension of some force. Some call the force God, some call it nature, etc., In any event, humans don’t create anything. We use what’s here to make stuff, including other people.
It’s silly to put the creation higher than the creator, even if you don’t call it God. To deny the existence of God and a universal intelligence is both arrogant and ignorant.
Nope. As usual, completely false. Not once have I made a religious argument.
Yet another lie.
You can believe in a creator all you want. That is your right. But to say that everyone makes religious arguments is ridiculous.
And irrelevant. Personal religious beliefs are exactly that. Personal. They should have nothing to do with this topic.
David, how is anyone asking for “special rights”? They’re just asking for the same rights that everyone else has.
There are ways to get those rights however without redefining marriage
Why shouldn’t we “redefine marriage”? (Or, in reality, simply remove one clause from the Matrimonial Clauses Act)
Any chance of you answering that?
Or more of the same? Misinformation and then silence.
I don’t need to defend the law we have
you need to explain why we should bother changing it
why shouldn’t we redefine taxes or adoption, or anything you want?
don’t ask why we shouldn’t prove why we should
you want a change you should prove why we should follow
I have explained why. At least twice.
You have ignored both those and any question that I’ve asked of you.
We do redefine taxes. All the time. Like, ALL the time.
This is another dishonest post from you. You’re unravelling.
Why is it so difficult for you to answer simple questions?
No Connor. You belive that equality is not a right. You are better than gay people, you think, and that’s all that counts. You can marry, they can’t. That’s your position. No reason for it, other than you just don’t believe in equality.
Do the proponents of SSM hate polygamists and other people in various consenting adult relationships, because SSM proponents want to discriminate against anything other than 2 consenting adults getting married.
To abolish marriage and make up some other definition solely related to consenting adult relationships we must consider all of the consequences. To say that this is a gay issue is short-sighted, this is a marriage issue…. So if we are redefining marriage for some, we must consider redefining for all, because “separate but equal is not equal” according to SSM activists.
Of course they don’t hate polygamists. And they’re not looking to discriminate against them. This is just yet another desperate fabrication from you.
You keep spreading this message of consequences, but don’t actually show any. It’s just fearmongering.
Polygamy is a separate issue that WILL be dealt with when the time comes. When people stand up and speak out against the restriction against more than one consenting adult – on a societal level, not just anecdotal examples – it will be dealt with.
Until then, it’s just a desperate, pathetic attempt to denounce equality.
Connor, actually you do need to defend the law we have.
In a different era the claim that you don’t have to defend existing law would have applied to giving women the vote, whites only lunch counters and the like. The laws of the day on those topics were wrong and today’s law re same-sex marriage is also wrong.
If you want to believe in an invisible being who created billions of people only to send most of them to a fiery pit of hell, a being who doesn’t care about war and disease but for some reason cares who you choose to have sex with, then that is your prerogative and there is no law preventing you from believing that nonsense. However, do not impose your fantasy on rational people who just want to live and let live.
happy new year Bernews! YES!! I do have a poll suggestion!
Topic: Corporate Bullies (Bullying in the Workplace)
corporate bullying is VERY prevalent but usually it’s hushed into a status of irrelevance because of it being the “less than significant” employee on the receiving end. too many bullied victims remain silent for fear of job loss or some other form of retaliation from “the powers that be”. it’s understandable because when some get a hold of a title or authority, they forget that there’s always “Someone” even above them and at the end of the day, they WILL have to answer for their moment of corrupt cognition.
no one should be put in the stressful position of choosing to receive the respect that is due them versus “keeping the peace”…and their job/their livelihood for that matter. while our human rights act attempts to cover areas of discrimination, it fails to adequately outline some very fundamental human rights, respectful behavior being front and center. victimization is harassment. retaliation is harassment. verbal degradation is harassment. our laws only speak of sexual harassment but we need consider that the workplace can be a breeding ground for much corruption and we must ALL determine to embrace respectful behavior as a human right. the topic must be presented, the conversation must be had…and the law must be changed to hold workplace bullies accountable.
we must remember that we cannot fix what we will not face. Nelson Mandela said “it always seems impossible until it’s done” and to make a better today and tomorrow for ourselves, we must SPEAK UP and do it NOW. the bully may seem bigger and more powerful at the time but imagine that we can create a 2016 that will go down in history as the year that victimized employees in Bermuda, by the thousands, all genders, all nationalities, all creeds, decided to make a personal commitment to stand up, to speak up, to be significant, and to put corporate bullies on notice that fear of retaliation is for the birds and that their reign ended yesterday!
there were two articles published in the RG on January 10th and 28th, 2014 respectively. the first entitled “Employees have increased bargaining power after ruling, says law firm” and the second, “Bar Association looks at ‘no win, no fee’ and ‘success fee’ options”. every now and then, a step in the right direction happens but two years on from then, we’re on the SAME STEP.
with special mention of the second article, so many victims of workplace bullying could be encouraged to know that their voice would be heard if such a law as identified here was “FAST TRACKED” to legislation. as we know, “money talks”, and while the first article expressed a brilliant win for the aggrieved employee, the money required to even get to court and seek justice deserved, is simply another story.
so yes, let’s talk about corporate bullying and poll those that day in and day out have to navigate a less than dignified workplace experience. then let’s be proactive to be the change we want to see.
Well now that I have read and listened to thousands of opinions on the subject I have made my first resolution for 2016. I am going to spend 2 hours every Sunday with gay friends enjoying laughter and conversation and I am going to skip mass where they judge,condemn and incite parishioners to look down upon people like my family members and friends that are gay.
Yes indeed.
The ignorance and intolerance of too many is shocking. Some of the same people that fought so hard for their own rights are the very ones that are discriminating against same sex couples and indeed the right to same sex marriage.
marriage is not a right it is a privilege, children however have a right to both a mother and a father
No. They don’t.
Every child, by definition HAS a mother and a father.
But they have no right to continue having them.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Is there legislation showing this right you claim?
Rights are not a matter of legislature humans are born with certain rights, human rights,
a persons legal rights may be provided by the goverment
but a child’s right to a mother and father is given at birth the same as there right to live to breathe
is there a law that allows breathing? or the right to live? do you need these things written out for you?
Yes. And that “right” is in no way impeded by same sex marriage.
Children HAVE to have a mother and father. That’s how reproduction works.
Their “right” to a mother and father isn’t affected.
However, they have no “right” to have either in their life, once born… or, in the father’s case, conceived.
Your argument is insane:
Children have a right to have parents – a male parent to provide the sperm and a female parent to provide the egg and (in most cases) to carry the baby (as in vitro is a thing, I need to be specific).
Therefore, gay people should be banned from getting married… because… something.
I don’t really understand your argument.
I’m not sure you do, either.
There is no “right” to a mother and father.
Many kids are without one or the other, and in some cases are without both.
You don’t really understand what a ‘human right’ is.
Can’t believe This is the bermuda In witch i was born Never thought I’d see the day this Bs would even been considered now Gays want rigths because they are human?
so what about the human that likes to do hard drugs we should just let them do drug because thy have rights as well?
First off…
Seriously? Did you ACTUALLY write “now Gays want rigths because they are human?” like they shouldn’t be allowed rights because they are human? Seriously? Like that’s not a good enough reason? Wow.
And what do drugs have to do with marriage? That’s a weird comparison.
Hard Drugs are illegal for anyone…that is equality in action.
Marriage is not recognized for a minority….that is INEQUALITY in action.
marriage by definition is not for everyone
under this concept of equality then we should all be able to have an eqaul say in everything no?
so then this issue should be taken to a vote by the people, a real vote done by the citizens of bermuda
Amazing how you ignored what “hmmm” actually said.
Why is that?
what was ignored? his comment on a minority?
government does not make rules to make everyone equal but to govern society
in that sense shouldn’t everyone receive financial aid?why is it just a minority that get help with government funding in the spirit of equality everyone should have government funding
why is it that the minority of people who consider those illegal hard drugs to be perfectly fine listened to shouldnt they have an equal say
no because we need to protect society and same sex marriage destroys the family and the definition of marriage and that in turn hurts society
Wow. I don’t know how to respond to this.
It’s spiraling into insanity.
You ignored it again. What part? All of it.
And then this:
“same sex marriage destroys the family and the definition of marriage and that in turn hurts society”
You keep saying this, but have NEVER explained how.
You refuse to say how it “destroys the family”, why we shouldn’t change the definition of marriage and how either of those things will hurt society.
Why can’t you just explain yourself in a calm, reasonable manner?
It’s which not witch! Jfc
That is totally your choice. I also have gay friends and family, of whom I love. As for mass…..I will leave that to the Catholics etc…. But as for me and my house…..I am very concerned with the way God views my life, and our society. If no one else cares how God feels….then I will be one standing with my eyes and heart on Him. You worry how people judge you……I am more concerned of how I live before a Holy God. Men are men……God is God……it will be a terrible thing to live against God and have to give and account later for my rebellion and disobedience. If God looks down on sin……am I to love it?
And THAT is your choice.
That choice shouldn’t have ANY effect on anyone else.
Or should it?
Should other people have to follow the rules of your religion?
Should other people have to worship your God?
You said it yourself “But as for me and my house”.
That is exactly who your personal choice of religions should affect, isn’t it?
Sorry but the Bible provides the ultimate “get out of jail free” card. You can commit the most horrible crimes imaginable and be a truly evil person but, as long as you accept Jesus/God into your heart you will be rewarded in Heaven.
However, if the person that lives an exemplary life and only does good doesn’t worship your God they will be tortured for all eternity.
Since the Bible doesn’t rank sins all are equally bad. That includes the usual list (shellfish, mixed fabrics and so forth) as well as the rest of the 600 odd rules that are laid down in the Old Testament. FYI, the Bible only mentions homosexual acts six times while it mentions the sin of left-handedness twenty-five times? But you knew that because you’ve actually read the Bible.
In fact, the only unforgivable sin is speaking against the holy spirit.
The nicest thing that can be said about it is that it’s a completely immoral world view.
Your theological misinterpretations are not worthy of debate, given that you’ve demonstrated you’re not interested in the truth or debate of any kind. You made this very clear when you made the statement that “the bible mentions the sin of left handedness 25 times.”
This is a complete lie and utter nonsense.
Weird how you can take the time to post on this, but answering a simple question takes too much time.
Or is there another reason you won’t give a reason to continue banning people from getting married?
There is no ban on marriage. There are people who don’t want marriage but want to borrow its name to explain their relationship.
Another lie.
This is untrue.
As usual, you show a complete lack of knowledge of the subject and just use complete fabrications to support your point.
You are wrong. There is a group of people that are not allowed to get married and share in the equal rights and privileges afforded to the rest of us.
Would you care to apologize for lying?
HW, you might want to actually read the Bible. You might learn something.
2016 ….and we can’t see. The absence of God in our lives and families, societies and institutions is creating mess. Mess that we cry about, being reflected in our bottom line.
God is the measuring stick. The Compass. The blueprint that keeps this little rock in place and prospering. Yes, morality will be questioned and attacked. But or measuring stick is The Lord.
And yet, you have the nerve to say you aren’t making a religious argument…
The absence of God? Before anyone can address that you have to tell us “which God” and then tell us why the word of that god should hold any special place in anyone else’s life.
You are free to worship Yahweh, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Satan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whichever one of the 5,000 other gods that you want. Believe what you want. Just don’t try to force the rest of the world to follow the tenets of your personal interpretation of your religion.
On that topic, the reason I reference “your interpretation” of your religion is simple. I trust that you are aware that even the major Christian denominations are not in agreement of the subject of same sex marriage. The positions of the major Christian sects vary and range from “no problem” through “we’ll leave it up to the individual pastor and congregation to decide” on to “hell no”. In other words, even the church doesn’t necessarily agree with you.
we all have rights as humans You want special rights because its not allowed in Bermuda yes?. so im sure as u want the right to marry another man as a man
im sure a junckie would like to do drugs freely instead of society looking down on them because society thinks it’s wrong to do Drugs as well right?
so we should just have no rules and let everyone do as thy please so everyone is happy?smfh
God is against it so am I
Do u go church as a gay person even though god doesn’t agree? Have you ever seen a vers in the Bible agreeing with 2 man or 2 woman geting married?
so why should it change now?
I guess we should pass laws prohibiting multi-fabric clothing, cross-breeding animals, eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it, trimming your beard, not standing in the presence of your elders, getting tattoos, mistreating foreigners and DIVORCE? Because all of those are punishable by death according to your Bible.
You don’t come close to understanding what your talking about. There different codes and practices for different reasons. The short version is that the moral laws didn’t change from the Old Testament to the New Testament….. You have eyes but cannot see. .so sad
So then why do you and people like you continue to quote the old testament then? Oh that is right cause as long as it is convenient for you and others you will use it but then when some one calls you on it then oh now you want to focus on the new testament which is still cherry picking verse. Might not be lies but still very dishonest.
Not all churches hold your opinion. Some are in agreement with the idea of same sex marriage. Further the bible says nothing about same sex marriage.
This from the person who told the lie about the bible supposedly referencing lefthandedness as a sin 25 times.
Sorry Blankman but you’re either biblically illiterate or purposely lying again regarding these matters.
So where does the Bible reference same sex marriage (not homosexuality since there are six references to that) but same-sex marriage?
Not all LGBT hold your opinion.
Just have a REFERENDUM on it. Then majority rules.
Rights should never be subject to the popular vote. That’s why they’re called “rights”.
BTW, you might be interested to know that when the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of mixed race marriage less than 20% of the American populace was in favour of the idea. Does that mean that the court was wrong?
I wonder what will happen to all of the people that viciously and vehemently oppose progress when that progress actually happens.
Will they be like the racists – stewing in anger over the fact that the people they discriminated against now have the same rights as them?
Will they leave the country altogether?
The social conscience is awakening, albeit slowly, to confront this issue. I’d estimate that there are probably between 5-10,000 people in Bermuda left who are truly AGAINST it, with a large number of people simply uneducated or uninformed about social injustices or historical context. I’ve very rarely seen anyone who is well educated or well informed on social and historical issues who is against it.
You couldn’t be more wrong. There are many very well-educated people – doctors, lawyers, teachers – who do not support it. I suspect their response will be not to get angry, but to simply “shake the dust off” as Paul did.
And don’t mistake apathy or fear of reprisal for a “social awakening”. The world of the 21st century has never been more lost and confused. We don’t have all the answers, but sure like to think we do.
Unfortunately, education means nothing if you don’t think critically. There are “educated” people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. This means that they are willfully ignorant (the worst kind) of all the evidence to the contrary.
I think it’s hilarious when people cry outrage at progress. If you didn’t post your comment using modern technology, then how did you do it? Did your God finally decide to intervene on Earth, starting with a Bernews post?
its legal in USA move there its legal in Portugal move there get married
Not in Bermuda Simple. ..
I don’t want my kids asking me why does Tommy have 2 daddy’s. and no mommy. ..smh
Just because you’re too lazy to talk about the world to your kids doesn’t mean the rest of us should suffer.
Kayla so tolerant so kind.
Says the person willing to openly lie, time and again, to promote the continuation of discrimination.
Calling me a liar doesn’t make you a truth teller. Name calling is your favorite intimidation tactic.
Another lie.
So sad. Seriously.
I don’t intimidate nor do I name call. I simply ask questions and point out hypocrisy.
You have been shown to lie again and again on this topic. Just as you’ve done here.
Why do you do this?
K29, if you have no difficulty telling them about this guy that lives at the North Pole and flies around the world in one night in a magic sleigh or a guy that had no father but who ended up rising from the dead after three days I’m sure you can figure out how to tell them about Timmy’s two dads or two moms.
How about “they love each other the same way mommy and I do so they got married”? Or will that scar them for life?
*I don’t want my kids asking me why does Tommy have 2 daddy’s. and no mommy. ..smh *
So , you find that situation difficult ?
How then would you handle it if your kids asked you why their friend Q’Shuntae has only a mommy and 8 brothers and sisters , all with different last names ?
If your kids ask, tell em so many kids wish they had just one daddy and Tommy was lucky enough to have two.
“I don’t want my kids asking me why does Tommy have 2 daddy’s. and no mommy. ..smh”
What about when your kids asks why you have 8 baby daddies? …smh
Just tell them that unfortunately these people have damaged dna or chromosomes….They were born that way…then you can explain to them not to hate because they can’t help it.
Wow. You really are full of hate, aren’t you?
Just nasty.
Man to man is so unjust children you don’t know who to trust …
All these perfect christians on here judging how everyone else lives their lives. Simply amazing. Let those without sin cast the first stone. Love thy neighbor as thyself. I can’t deal with the religious argument for this. Nobody is saying that christians have to be gay and get married. So your archaic religious rumblings have no bearing on this human rights issue. And quite honestly, if you were truly spiritual I am sure God would be deeply saddened that you choose to spend your time fighting against this which has no bearing on your life instead of doing something constructive to make someone else’s life a little better.
I would like marriage to remain between one man and one woman.
Why?
And why should you get a say in someone else’s relationship?
Nova, why – all we want is a valid reason. So far I haven’t seen one.
All we’d like is for you to admit you lied earlier. I’ve yet to hear you admit that.
And again, we’re not talking about perspective or opinion, we’re dealing with a blatant lie you made in a previous statement.
Wait… You don’t like lying now? Since when? You’ve been lying this entire time!
Wow. Double standard!
What are you talking about?
I don’t stand for same sex marriage we are not brought up on same sex marriage no one is born to like another man or women. I feel that you giving them gay rights goes against God also it goes against religion we know same sex marriage is wrong. How your gonna have a pastor marrie the same sex when in church and in the bible they tell and shows us it’s wrong. All same sex does is spreads diseases and also corrupts the children remember you wasn’t put on this earth because your parents were thinking about same sex marriage. No who cares if other countries are alright with it we need to stand out and stop following it bad enough they forcing us to exccpet it by having a gay scene in every movie or even having it on commercials think about what you doing to the future generations and stop thinking about your selfs.
It would seem that you don’t stand for grammar, either. Maybe we should make punctuation illegal?
This is nothing more than hate-filled gibberish.
No one should be forced to follow the rules of your religion.
please – don’t insult gibberish
Let gays be married. Why not them be as miserable as the rest of us…lol
Just a question.
People say it’s written that man should be with women in able to conceive. If this is the case why did God make it so some women are not able to have children.
These women then have to adopt and so what’s the difference if gay people do it?
Past governments defined marriage between one male and one female because they saw the benefit it gives to society over other types of relationships. That is why the government gives benefits to traditional married couples because they receive the benefit to society. Promoting this does not discriminate or ban anything but instead promotes the relationship under which the next generation best thrives under.
So completely wrong, I don’t know where to start.
Oh, yes, I do. Back when you tried to push this lie before and were shut down with facts and truth.
The ability to have kids is not a stipulation for nor a restriction from marriage.
You are incorrect. Please stop spreading lies. It’s not doing good.
Even accepting your arguement that hetrosexual marriage provides benefits to society how is same sex marriage going to change that? Heterosexuals will still get married in the same numbers they do now. So the benefits to society will remain the same.
yes but same sex marriages negatively effect our children who will never see that every child needs a mom and dad that those two parental figures are unique and necessary
How?
How do they negatively affect our children?
You’ve made this claim over and over, but don’t explain how. You post a link that doesn’t explain it, either.
Why is it so hard to back up your claim?
Same sex marriage changes that by redefining marriage. If we say there is no difference between traditional marriage and same sex marriage that minimizes the societal importance of traditional marriage making its future uncertain and therefore the benefit may fade. This is why we cannot say the benefit will remain the same.
You sound like the white people who didn’t want black people to vote, because it would make their vote less important.
Still no specifics. Just nebulous fearmongering.
We deserve better.
Prove it.
Adam and Eve – not Adam and Steve!
More seriously – only 20 countries have given allowance to same sex marriages. the EU does not recognise it. No to gay marriage. Actually I will say it for real “ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!!!!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Europe
Do you even know how to Google?
Literally took me a second to disprove your ridiculous “facts”
And why has there been no discussion on the unprecedented same sex marriage laws that have been passed in IRELAND? ! A country that is predominantly catholic
I believe that human beings have the right to pursue a lifestyle of their choosing because it is exactly that; their choice. But when something like same-sex marriage is being pushed into the courts so it can be legalized, there will be disagreements. Everyone will have to live with the decision our government decides to make and the laws that will follow. Do I support same-sex marriage? No. Am I ignorant or hateful because I choose to disagree with same-sex marriage? No. I simply see the value in a society where children are raised by a married man and woman.
Sounds like ignorance to me!
If gay couples adopting were taking kids away from straight couples adopting, you might have a leg to stand on. But there are still millions of children around the world without parents, living in orphanages, group homes and on the streets. So I think we can agree that having two parents who are the same sex is better than having no parents at all.
That is not a valid argument, nor does it even attempt to fix the original problem which you admit is a need for a child to have both a mother and father
Connor, what are you talking about? True Lies post does not say anything about children needing a mother and father – only that children are better off with same sex parents than they are living on the streets. I don’t see how anyone can disagree with that (regardless of their position on same sex marriage in general)
Not a stipulation for marriage.
Do you have an actual argument against it?
It’s not a valid argument because you disagree? You think that a child is better off in foster care or a group home than they would be with two mothers or two fathers?
It is a reasonable attempt to fix the problem of homeless and parentless children. There are people who want to love and care for them. Unless you are willing to adopt all of the orphans of the world, why would you stop a loving, stable couple from giving them a home?
Banning same sex marriage doesn’t fix the problem either. At all.
So… what’s the argument, again?
It prevents a further destruction of the family and the distortion of marriage
Huh?
How? Please explain this. How is allowing people to become a family “further destruction of the family”?
And why is “distortion” of marriage (i.e. allowing people unfairly discriminated against and banned from it) a bad thing?
Oh, wait. You don’t answer questions properly, do you? Just vague, nebulous catchphrases without anything to back them up.
My bad. I keep forgetting.
But what about the fact that the opponents to same sex marriage have given not a single valid argument against it?
Surely disagreements have to have some sort of integrity, no?
You mention raising kids. This is not a necessity for marriage.
Can you give one, just one, valid reason to continue using that single clause in the Marriage Clauses Act to discriminate against gay people?
I keep asking folks that are opposed to same sex marriage, but they never answer?
Mike, stop it!! Please.
It doesn’t matter what reason someone gives it would NEVER be valid to you. The same as, whatever reason you give for supporting Same-Sex would never be a valid reason to those who strongly oppose it.
Stop playing the games.
Not playing games. I leave that to you.
And you are (surprise, surprise) completely wrong.
If someone shows a real, valid reason to stop people from gaining equal rights, one that stands up to scrutiny, then I will change my mind.
I’ve done it before and will do it again. I do it constantly, whenever new data comes in.
However, no one’s even offered a single one that stands up to the simplest of questions.
No one’s ever defended their position. They just do what you do: Post lies, then run away.
Here’s an idea… since you don’t like “the games”: Why not post a valid, honest, real reason; let it stand up to scrutiny; defend it if needs be; answer questions about it and see if my mind changes.
Until you do, your accusations ring more than a little untrue.
Odd that you didn’t do that to start with in order to prove this point…
raising kids is necessary for their to be equality between a married homosexual couple and heterosexual couple and since your whole argument is about equal human rights than
1st you will make same sex marriage legal
then we will truly have to defend the children of bermuda from the fight for allowing all marriages to adopt and create children
this battle and it is a battle is for the defense of the next generation of bermudian youth who will grow up never knowing that every marriage every child has a mom and a dad
Huh… this is… just bizarre.
“raising kids is necessary for their to be equality between a married homosexual couple and heterosexual couple and since your whole argument is about equal human rights than”
This is simply factually incorrect. It’s an outright lie. And pretty much nonsense.
It’s not even wrong. It’s not even an argument.
“then we will truly have to defend the children of bermuda from the fight for allowing all marriages to adopt and create children”
Why? Why would you stop people from adopting children? Seriously? You want to stop committed couples from offering a home to a child, simply because, according to you, it’s not the ideal? That is sick.
And as for “creating children”? I DARE you to try stopping people from having kids. That’s just… wow. Are you seriously supporting THAT level of oppression? For absolutely no reason?
That’s insane.
“this battle and it is a battle is for the defense of the next generation of bermudian youth who will grow up never knowing that every marriage every child has a mom and a dad”
You do get that same sex marriage won’t change how we do things, right? Every child will still have a mother and a father. That’s how it works. You DID get the birds and bees talk, right?
And it won’t affect us teaching reproduction, either. We’ll still teach kids how it all works.
This is turning into one of the weirdest arguments for discrimination that I’ve ever read.
allinlove, how will you have to “live with it”? Is someone demanding that you enter into a same sex marriage? How will it affect you? [The only way it can affect your marriage is if one of you is gay.]
As for the children argument – first children of same sex couples actually fare better than those of opposite sex couples so that argument doesn’t work. And if you want to insist that children be raised by a married man and woman you might want to look around and see how many single parents there are out there.
Why should anyone believe anything you say when you blatantly lied earlier on here? That’s right, it wasn’t a matter of interpretation or perspective- you told a boldface lie and presented it as truth.
Kind of like your lies about Governments role in marriage?
Following your reasoning, we should also dismiss your posts.
I don’t really have a problem with that.
What’s your position on why government has a role in marriage?
Government is involved in marriage because it involves legal rights.
That’s it.
They ensure that these rights are afforded to people.
The Government is NOT involved to ensure that marriage creates the ideal situation for child rearing, as you keep falsely claiming.
But why are there rights afforded to married people?
What does that have to do with it? There ARE rights afforded to people.
Where it comes from, as I’ve mentioned, is irrelevant.
They’re there. They exist.
They’re being denied to a group of our fellow citizens for absolutely no valid reason.
Am I wrong? Is there a valid reason to deny these rights to people?
Would you care to provide it?
If not, why are you even wasting time asking irrelevant questions?
(And the answer is: So that people can create a family together, with the rights afforded to a family. There are a lot of them.
Note: A family CAN be just husband and wife. Children are NOT a criterion for a family. Yes, one possible definition of family includes children, but there are other ways to make a family that do not involve children, therefor the argument that marriage is about creating the ideal situation for having kids is incorrect. In fact, it’s not even incorrect. It’s so off the mark, it’s not even wrong. NOWHERE does it say that marriage is about creating the ideal situation for raising kids. If I’m wrong and it DOES say that somewhere, please show us. If not, please stop pushing that line of misinformation.)
It’s not an irrelevant question at all Mike. We’re talking about redefining marriage and I want to know why would the government give rights to married couples in the first place? this helps us understand what government’s interest in marriage is and why they would grant these rights to married couples in the first place. You can’t say that it doesn’t matter and that “there’s no valid reason to deny other people these rights” (paraphrasing) unless you clearly understand why they exist in the first place. in fact, I’m amazed at that line of reasoning as it’s a completely illogical way to approach ANY topic.
Imagine someone saying that electrical fences are discriminatory and unfair and we should remove them; they deny certain citizens access to an area they’d like to go to and to keep them up is a denial of their rights. if we’re to understand whether those fences should be taken down or not, would be it wise to dismiss any discussion on why they’re there in the first place? of course not- in fact, that would be the only logical thing TO DO. you seem to be on the side of “just take them down, it’s unfair” without any regard for why they’re there in the first place or what the consequences of removing them would be.
Thanks for clarifying your position which you’ve now stated to be that marriage rights are given by government: “So that people can create a family together, with the rights afforded to a family.”
Sorry, but that’s not a sufficient answer and should therefore be completely dismissed, as those rights are not a stipulation for creating a family.
How is… What are…
None of this makes any sense,
Have you been drinking?
This is all gibberish.
Marriage is like electrical fences?
Then you try to reword what I’ve been saying to make whatever point you’re trying to make? But doing it so clumsily that it makes no sense…
I didn’t say the rights were a stipulation. Not once.
I pointed out that when people get married, they gain the rights that a family has.
Are you honestly not seeing it, or has your desperation to rationalize your desire to discriminate against gay people blinded you? I mean, I’m being pretty clear here.
You are reacting to things I didn’t actually say, or, at least, a deliberate misinterpretation of it.
What’s REALLY interesting is that, in all of that there that you’ve written, you didn’t once give a valid reason to “leave the fence up”, to use your bizarre, off-the-Mark analogy.
Why is that?
Surely, if your position is as strong as you seem to think it is, there MUST be a valid reason to continue this ban.
What is it?
For some reason I’m unable to reply to your comment below mine right now, so I’ll respond here…
First off, I’m not intimidated by your attempted insults Mike. What are you going on about? When you’re backed into a corner that seems to be your method. If your position is so strong, you should be able to do better than resorting to that.
Secondly- I was not comparing marriage to an electrical fence. In your haste to rudely attack anybody who disagrees with you, you’ve yet again missed the point. I used that analogy in reference to the logic you’ve used in approaching this subject. You’re saying it doesn’t matter where the rights come from or why they’re given in the first place. That demonstrates you have no understanding of marriage or why the rights are given. You cannot possibly state that marriage is currently denying rights to certain people if you have no understanding or even any interest in finding out why those rights exist in the first place. That’s a silly way to approach any topic- “oh, I don’t care about why it is the way it is, I just want it changed.”
You answered my question regarding why government gives certain rights to married people by saying “so that people can create a family together with the rights afforded to a family.”
That does NOTHING to answer my question and while you willfully ignore answers given to your questions and accuse people of not answering them, you’ve clearly done just that here. Why did government determine to give these rights to married people? Why did government care about families?
And again, no valid reason given.
Instead, a ridiculous, false, personal attack.
But let’s go through your argument.
Electric fences are discriminatory.
The argument against this? No. They’re not, because they are on someone else’s property, protecting them from trespassers.
See? That’s how easy it is to give a counterargument to someone saying “X is discriminatory”.
You haven’t done that. Why?
AND, Government doesn’t care about families. I never said that.
But family members have rights that they share.
Marriage gives those rights to someone outside of that family.
Get it?
Let’s extend it, though. Why did they do that?
Well, because people decided that it would be good to have those rights with someone they want to spend their life with.
Why do families get rights with each other?
Well, who else is going to get those rights? SOMEONE has to have these rights…
Here’s some of the rights we’re talking about…
Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other’s debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can’t cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can’t always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don’t cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA’s and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family’s resources without adverse tax consequences.
Now, children are mentioned in this, but before you leap on that, it HAS to be noted that it is not the SOLE benefit or right, so any argument that people that can’t have kids together or provide the ideal situation to raise kids should be not allowed to get married is not valid, for this very reason.
But are you getting it? These are rights that families have. Siblings and parents and children have these rights, built in. Marriage gives these rights to someone that ISN’T a member of the family.
THAT is where these rights come from.
THESE are some of the rights that are being denied through this discriminatory clause.
There has been NO argument offered as to why this discrimination should continue.
THAT is my argument. THAT is my position.
Now. I’ve answered your questions pretty thoroughly.
Will you answer mine?
Why should we continue denying these rights to same sex couples?
Or, electrical fences keep cows in, or horses, or sheep.
There are tonnes of reasons to have electrical fences. Solid, valid, easily producible reasons.
There isn’t one for continuing to deny access to equal marriage rights and privileges to a group of citizens.
Or is there? Why don’t you offer one?
Oh, and in more and more places, it can be husband and husband, wife and wife AND both of those and kids. And the kids seem to be doing just fine.
If same sex marriage was right then it would have been legalize from are formal ancestors
You do know that many cultures had formalized same sex relationships, throughout the ages, right?
“Are formal ancestors” did make it “legalize”.
Question fora poll
Should we build a new Airport when no new hotels haven’t even broken ground?
Think about it if we build a new airport we still have the same amount of rooms, we need the hotels before the airport to accommodate the increase in air arrivals.
Gods fan clubs are out in force again trying to shove their beliefs down others throats.
Tell you what, let God speak up for himself/herself/itself/whateverself on this issue. Don’t wan to hear from some self appointed middle man. When the word comes directly, then there will be something to listen to. So far that has never happened. It has always been some self appointed agent making a noise.
Y’all can believe whatever you want. Makes no difference to the other 70% of us who say if you want SSM, go for it.
“Let God speak up”…ok! Go to:
http://www.holylove.org/search_messages.php
In the “Keywords” box type in “same sex marriage” and every message Jesus, Mother Mary, God and even some Saints will come up about what they say about same sex marriage.
If you’re serious about this issue, then look it up. But even the Bible says in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that before they were born, God hardened the hearts and closed the ears of those who would never believe in Him or His laws; no matter who showed them the Word…sooo…good luck!
Oh, WOW! You again!
The person that thinks that Jesus, Mary, God and the saints post on a message board!
This is incredible. You HAVE to be trolling.
You can’t be serious.
My laugh of the day! I am trying to visualise something other than a human tapping away at a keyboard.
Hasn’t happened yet.
Is Jesus a PC or Mac type person?
The real reason you want to do this is for the money you don’t care about gay rights but that’s the thing. The government is always worrying about the wrong things how legalizing gay rights gonna help are community how is that gonna help are children in the future
Nope. The real reason most of us are doing this because we believe in equality and think it’s unfair that some folks are denied equal access to rights and privileges.
How will it help? It’ll allow some of our fellow citizens to get married. It’ll allow them to share rights and privileges the rest of us have. Isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t getting rid of discrimination a good thing?
How is it going to help children? Well, making them more tolerant is a good thing, isn’t it? Making them hate less is good, isn’t it?
Here’s a question: How is continuing this ban helping our community?
Judgment day is coming! U all best believe that homosexuality is a sin! You reap what you sow. There’s far too many children coming up in dysfunctional man/woman home! Poor kids gonna be so confused in mama/mama and daddy/daddy homes. Some adults make the most dangerous decisions at the expense of children and it wrong wrong wrong. What happens if the homosexual decides to turn their life around and want someone of the opposite sex, then u gonna try and change the child’s mind, what total confusion for the children! This has happened and it will happen again, shame on the selfish ones who rob the children of “thus saith the Lord”. Just a matter of time before the clouds burst open n we all have to stand before the judgment sent of God to give an account of what we have done and how we have raised the children that He has blessed us with. Mercy!!!
This is your personal choice of religion and you are allowed to believe whatever you want to.
But don’t you agree that other people’s religions’ rules should not be forced onto us if we don’t follow that religion? Would you be ok with someone else’s religious rules being forced on you? Would you be ok with being denied rights that the rest of us have because of someone else’s religion’s rules?
That is exactly what the SSM people are attempting to do.
The difference in sharing with you about the things of God is that no one is forcing you to make that decision to follow or comply with it. Some if not most share with you what we believe is the will of God for all of us and like anything it has it’s do’s and dont’s but what you all are attempting to do is force everyone to agree with you and this is not right.
If that is your choice and way of life, thank you for sharing your information but the majority is not interested.
And please do not get it twisted, this little poll in no way reflects the general population of Bermudians because the truth is many of them do not view the newspaper on line or have access to it.
In fact this was just a way of making a whole lot of noise about nothing as I was able to vote and am not in the country as well as I was able to send it to many friends in different parts of the world to view.
As mentioned there are over 20 countries that allow it to take place there, well bon voyage, I’m sure they will offer beautiful back drops for the wedding and honeymoon.
Not allowing it to take place in Bermuda will not adversely effect the economy either as there are far too many places that have said no and are doing very well with their economy.
Oh and by the way, I am a Bermudian born and bred who is not angry or bitter or hateful in anyway with Homosexuals/Lesbians or any thing in between in fact I have wonderful friends and family members who choose that lifestyle and I love them and respect them no less. That is their choice not mine and I can choose not to agree with it.
I think when you go to the root you will get a better understanding that many of us love the person we just don’t condone the act.
Not true at all.
No one is forcing anything on religious people, nor denying them rights… unless you think they have a right to discriminate. Do you? Do you think that that is a right?
The only thing getting twisted here is the truth.
Then you go on to say that gay people should move out of the country if they want to get married! Why should they have to? Because your personal choice of religion forbids YOU from doing it. It doesn’t forbid anyone else that doesn’t follow your choice of religion. Don’t you see how bonkers that is?
You then say you respect your gay friends… But obviously not enough to think they deserve equal rights under the law. As long as they remain second class citizens, you’re cool with them.
No one is asking you to “agree with it”.
We’re just saying that, if people are going to be denied rights, let’s at least have a valid reason for it and, if there isn’t one, let’s stop the discrimination.
I would like an explanation as to why the definition of marriage needs to be changed
lastly i want someone to present a real study that would prove that same sex marriage has no effects on children
and of course this issue effects our children
are we really supposed to believe that once they can get married they will settle for not wanting children in the name of equality
this will be pushed until the very nature of our society is changed
“I would like an explanation as to why the definition of marriage needs to be changed”
I’ve given you one. Repeatedly. You keep ignoring it and repeating the same thing over and over, even after it’s been answered.
“lastly i want someone to present a real study that would prove that same sex marriage has no effects on children”
You’re the one making the claim that it will. The burden of proof is on you as you made the claim.
The link you’ve put up doesn’t actually show a negative effect. If it did, you’d copy and past it every time I asked you what negative effect this would have. You didn’t. You showed absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim.
“and of course this issue effects our children”
How?
“are we really supposed to believe that once they can get married they will settle for not wanting children in the name of equality”
Again, are you seriously saying orphans and kids in need of homes shouldn’t be allowed to be adopted because the couple is gay? Are you saying that we, as a society, have a right to tell people whether they can or can’t have kids?
That’s disgusting.
“this will be pushed until the very nature of our society is changed”
How? Will it be changed… other than for the good, creating a more tolerant, accepting, loving, equal society?
Oh, and “in the name of equality”? Are you seriously arguing against equality?
This “issue effects our children” arguement issue is really getting old.
1) Willingness, fitness, or even the ability to have children is not, and never has been, a criteria for marriage.
2) There is zero evidence to suggest that children of same-sex parents are in anyway negatively affected except as a consequence of outside hostility to their family structure. The fact is that most studies demonstrate the children raised in an emotionaly and economically stable environment do well; regardless of the family structure.
3) Denying same-sex couples the right to marry will not prevent same-sex couples from having and raising children. You do not need to be married to have children. Artificial insemination and suragacy provide the means for same-sex couples to have children. Married or otherwise. Adoption by unmarried homosexual couples is allowed in Bermuda since the Supreme court rulling in the A & B v Director of Child and Family Services & Attorney General case. So, unless you are suggesting a Constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex couples from having and raising children, denying them the right to marry does nothing to protect children from what you think is the detrimental effects of homosexual parents.
I agree with you Mr hind.
Everyone talks about acceptance and love…. but they cannot accept or even love themselves.
Nobody gets it.
Religion will be the downfall of mankind, as you can already see.
No doubt in my mind that religion creates crazies. It is pure man made fiction. 4,200 religions and 500 Gods all claiming they are the light. Religions has supported, stoning, crucifixions, beheadings, slavery, genocide, crusades, abuse of women and much more.
Freedom from religion takes away all the fear. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
Preservemarriage.bm
preserve marriage is a hate group hell bent on denying a segment of our population equal rights that are afforded to others. i seem to recall something in Bermuda’s history about denying rights to a segment of our population that were afforded to others…..
Would be interesting to see the change in results over time.
These results are based on a small demographic of younger people who have access to internet and Bernews. The majority of Bermudians are against this and this was already shown by the polls prior to this one. Those against same sex had theirs open for a month and received 7000 votes. While those supporting had theirs open for longer and only had approx. 3000. This definitely shouldn’t sway anyone’s mind as this is a misrepresentation of those that wish to speak out on the matter but don’t have the means or follow Bernews.
Sorry @WHY, but your logic is flawed. If it’s a matter of internet access– Young/Old,etc… how do you explain the online signatures received in your comparison.
The poll against SSM was open to all kinds of falsehoods and with zero controls in place.. I myself signed it as Mickey Mouse just as test the same as hundreds of others here have noted doing — this, unlike the other Poll in support which was controlled by a required real-time actual working email address.
Nice try.
The online signatures was given a month to get those people who had no access the ability to access. So my logic isn’t flawed. There were controls in place and those who signed with silly names like “Mickey Mouse” were deleted. Just as bernews can accept posts, they could accept or delete a post that was repetitive etc. The only foul play came from people like yourself who tried to jeopardize these results
That petition/poll on http://www.preservemarriage.bm was bogus. The website was flawed and is not a bonafide petition website. the numbers were all over the place. Their credibility is zero.
The problem here is this unless God shows himself/herself the LGBT community will have no reason to believe they are doing something wrong. They quite simply don’t believe in God or his/her ways.
It will take much more than the church going ppl to convince Sodom that what they are doing is wrong.
The gay community is loud.
p.s.
Couldn’t care less about marriage as a whole.
Worst choice I have made…. ever and I have made more than a few bad choices lol.
Ignorant people are loud, yet deaf.
There is no god, why keep mentioning it?
Just my humble opinion….
Same sex Marriage – NO!
Same sex Civil Union – No opposition to!
Difference:
Marriage ordained by God between a Man and a Woman
Civil Union officiated by a Judge or senior member of the courts.
Outcome:
Same benefits, no one is discriminated against.
Both religious and non-religious members of the community are satisfied.
SIMPLE, COMMON SENSE APPROACH! Lets love not hate!
As previously stated, marriage is not ‘ordained by God’, it is a civil institution, and therefore secular. The common sense approach is to give equal marriage rights to all citizens regardless of sexual preference.
I agree with you 100%.
So… Do I have to call my marriage a Civil Union because it isn’t “ordained by God”?
And you do know that churches do weddings, right? Not marriages.
Mike,
The suggestion to call it a civic union, is that it will cover all necessary requirements. Acknowledged by the Government for legal reasons, recognized by the public for social reasons, understood by the church for moral/spritual reasons. Why then to fight for equal rights when this will provide all?
Is there another agenda?
A civic union will answer all and stop all debate.
Here is just one issue among many concerning the use of a different term.
If you are married and leave Bermuda your marriage will be recognized in pretty much every country in the world. How do we go about informing the world that in Bermuda a “civil union” certificate is the same as a marriage certificate. Or should we just add a that in small print at the bottom.
But why do this when simply letting folks get married will do the same thing?
We’re talking about removing one subclause from one act. One line in a bit of legislation. That’s it. Why go through all the bother to set up a separate system?
Did u marry a man or woman and why did you choose that life partner…that’s all I want to know.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Just keep your religious beliefs to yourself as you love to say.
Was this to me? I don’t get it. I don’t have religious beliefs.
What are you talking about?
Me? I married a woman, because that’s who I fell in love with.
Why do you want to know this? Why is that important?
How about if the churches don’t want to share the term then they use another term. Oh wait, they do. They call it Holy Matrimony. Why? Because mariage is a secular legal term.
Why are we even arguing. The bigots are in the minority. It’s what the majority of the country wants, and what all the intelligent people in the country want. Why even debate it? All they can do is strawman children into the argument. Just force the minority into the 21st century like we always have done to improve the quality of life for everyone.
Once upon a time, they said black people couldn’t marry white people because of the effect that it wold have on society and the children. They said being from mixed heritage would confuse and psychologically damage the children. A strawman argument back then and still a strawman today with the gays.
And there we have it. Yet another page filled with people spreading misinformation and, worse, disinformation, lies and thinly veiled bigotry, using disingenuous willful misunderstanding, false arguments of incest, bizarre arguments that because gay people can’t have children with one another, they shouldn’t be allowed to have kids or even get married at all… I don’t completely understand the “logic behind this one… And religious arguments, which were then denied.
What we didn’t have is a single valid argument against making same sex marriage legal.
And it’s not just a “well, you’re for SSM, so no argument will be valid” thing.
Not a single argument against it had any sort of basis in reality or the law. Not one of the VERY few that were offered.
I we are going to discriminate against a group of our fellow citizens and deny them the rights that the rest of us share- and I’m not saying that there aren’t times that this needs to happen… there obviously are – surely we all agree that there MUST be a valid reason to do so.
I can’t see any reason to not get rid of 15c of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974. (I misnamed is previously on this page. Sorry.)
Religious entitlement and intolerance at its worst. Further proof that religion poisons everything.
Ex Choir boy religion without relationship can be a poison. God is not religion and religion is not God. There are many societies who don’t boast God at the helm that know the truth about marriage. Intolerance and hate has been wrapped in a rainbow and is trying to muzzle free speech and religious liberties. Many accusations & lies have been told in this forum. The people who are for keeping traditional marriage are no more discriminatory than those who want special rights to suit SSM.. Polygamy and polyamory are real issues because this debate is on redefining marriage. These people feel genuine love and want to change the definition of marriage to suit their lifestyle as well. Marriage has a definition, to alter its definition is to change it purpose completely.
‘those who want special rights to suit SSM’
This is a lie, no one is asking for special rights. What we want are the same rights that are given to those who are already allowed to marry.
‘Polygamy and polyamory are real issues because this debate is on redefining marriage’
Another lie, this debate has nothing to do with polygamy except for when those against marriage equality use as a reason to block marriage equality
Polygamist and polyamorist would vehemently disagree with you. They have opinions on marriage equality just like everyone else. If we are redefining marriage, to be FAIR we must consider all consenting adult relationships.
The ideological views of traditional marriage are being called discriminatory and hateful practices.
We will need to find an acceptable definition of “marriage” that will not violate any consenting adult’s “human rights”… Considering only the SSM view is still discrimination against those wanting to love several consenting adults.
It is short-sighted not to consider the long term consequences of seemingly good intentions.
And you yet again miss the point that is being made against you. This debate is about marriage equality in regards to same sex couples and does not have any thing to do with polygamy and does even address it. But again as i have said you and others like you are the only ones who keep bring it as a means to confuse and muddle the current topic because you lack any valid argument against the actual topic of discussion.
This is just the usual tact that people like you use when you get called out on lies, you turn to other dishonest means which just show how little you really want to actually want to have a proper conversation about the issue at hand
Many accusations and lies HAVE been told. The vast majority from you and your side!
No one is trying to muzzle free speech. That is nonsense. And a lie.
No one is trying to do anything to anyone’s religious liberties… Well except folks like you who don’t think others should have the liberty to NOT have to follow the rules of your religion. Polygamy isn’t part of this conversation, as no one is asking for it, other than folks trying to make a false slippery slope argument.
Removing the Clause 15c will NOT change the purpose of marriage in any way.
Why do you continue to lie?
Mike, See David & Tonia Parker who was told that they had no parental rights as to how their son could be educated. They only requested to be informed when issues around SSC/families were being taught. They were told that they had no right to be informed after their son was sent home with a “diversity” bag with books and literature without their consent or permission.
The father was arrested for trespassing because he reportedly refused to leave the school without an explanation, … The case made its way to court and the judge upheld that the school did not have to inform the parents…. Essentially the parent’s rights regarding their child’s education were disregarded. Of course there are numerous other stories as well.
No one should condone the mistreatment of any group of people, nor does anyone hold any moral superiority, we are all on a journey. Bermuda should consider the entire scope of what changing its laws will mean both now, while its popular and in the long term with whatever ramifications that will hold.
None of this has anything to do with the subject.
You continue to evade the questions I ask.
Why is that?
Freedom of Speech and religion and parental rights.
You’ve lost it, “daylily”.
Completely.
Again, Mike calling me a liar doesn’t make you a truth teller…. It just makes you a name caller. For someone espousing tolerance, the most hateful dialogue I’ve had in my life has come from you.
My LGBT friends and family have more respect than you do. Maybe you aren’t their best representative after all.
Yet another lie.
Now it’s false personal attacks. “Hateful dialogue” from me? Where? Come on. You’re just lashing out wildly in hopes that someone believes the fabrications you’re selling. Hateful dialogue. Seriously? At least TRY to make your lies realistic! I bet you won’t even respond with a single example of my hateful dialogue.
Oh, and I’m not a representative. I speak for me and only me.
Yet another misrepresentation of the truth from you.
And your story is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous that parental rights would be dismissed.
Not even a response to what I said…
As for your story, the parents absolutely DO have a say in how their child is educated. They have options. What they DON’T have a say in is how other people’s children are educated. If they don’t like the syllabus, they can remove their child from it.
The father was arrested because he was trespassing. That is wrong and against the law and has nothing to do with the story.
As usual, you are misrepresenting reality to support discrimination, using a single example that is probably nowhere near how you’re describing it.