You CLAIMED you had made your case without actually making it. AGAIN!

You do this every time!

Amazing.

The initial post used “natural order”.

You’ve moved the goalposts.

That isn’t fair.

LOL maybe this is some form of “micro evolution” or de-evolution depending on what you believe. All I asked was for information that is provable to formulate or revise if necessary my opinion. So far they have failed to do so. Remember they are trying to convince others of their point not the other way around.

and this is how i base my view on this.

‘intended to enable and encourage the free development of any individual by means of relationships. Such a notion included homosexual unions,…’
this tells me they are talking about marriage/ partnerships what ever you want to call it. as it states it is talking about enabling and encouraging the develop of people through relationships i.e. marriage, it clearly states that that homosexual unions are included in that intention.

‘…understood as a stable cohabitation of two people of the same sex, who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple,obtaining – in time and by the means and limits to be set by law – juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties.’
they are going on to further explain what a homosexual union is and then state they have the fundamental right (isn’t that another way of saying human right?) to express themselves as a couple and to have rights and duties of a couple under the law, just like opposite sex couple aka married people.

The bit squeezed in between obtaining and juridical as i understand it is reference to the requirements by the law that need to be met before some one can be coupled/married. this would mean in Bermuda posting Notice of intended marriage for 14 days (which would fall under time I would assume), need to over 18 years old or having both parents/guardians consent. This done gets you a marriage licence from the Registrar General which is valid for 3 months ( limit as was mentioned in the blurb) then you need two witnesses which have to sign the marriage certificate which of course is another limit.

All of this is about marriage and the rights and duties that go with it, which means this all translates into same rights because if the rights and duties were equally applied to same sex couples as opposite sex couples there would never have been the need for this court case in the first place.

Also I do see where they talk about all this being achieved in other ways and yes you are right that is talking about civil unions but what i think your missing is what comes after all that;
‘Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court clarified that without prejudice to Parliament’s discretion, it could however intervene according to the principle of equality in specific situations related to a homosexual couple’s fundamental rights, where the same treatment of married couples and homosexual couples was called for. The court would in such cases assess the reasonableness of the measures.’
This EHRC say that if the rights are given to all that the cases could be brought before them again and they would make the decision that the Parliament couldn’t. An example I would imagine would be, if same sex couple were not given rights at the hospital such as being able to make decisions for an incapacitated partner. This could be brought back to EHRC and they could make a ruling if Italy had done nothing. And the said could be said of Bermuda if things get pushed that far.

Next bit… You’re talking about family members. I’ve explained this. They already have the rights.

The next two bits are just bizarre ranting, showing your complete lack of understanding of what I said,

Maybe try reading again and really trying to work it out.

The point is that family members have rights together. Marriage grants those rights to someone outside the family. People already in the family already have those rights and, thus, don’t need to get married to get them.

Or are you being willfully ignorant about this, pretending you don’t get it because it doesn’t fit into your agenda?

You tell me, does what you quoted translate to same rights? I don’t see it.

When you say family how far are you going. So why can’t a same-sex couple two first cousins marry than.

What does that have to to with marriage? Two consenting adult want to marry. Your condition of them being family of not being able to get married is irrelevant.

Why does being family matter for two consenting adults. You are discriminating.

So what does this part mean to you? Or are you choosing to ignore this part?
The ECHR is say that same sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples but they chicken out by saying that so long as the governments provide the legal frame work it doesn’t matter if its not called marriage.

‘Not SAME RIGTHS because civil unions do not provide the SAME RIGHTS but some.’ So you admit then that civil unions do not offer the equal rights, and so are rather pointless.

The disabled are a minority, so to have a referendum about whether we should give them rights would be disappointing. Not “to give them rights”…

You completely misrepresented what was said.

Please try to make sense.

But then you never actually do, do you?

This is complete gibberish.

Why limit bringing people in to your family to people outside your family?

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE INSIDE YOUR FAMILY ARE ALREADY INSIDE YOUR FAMILY!

How can you not see that?

I mean, I know you’re desperate to rationalize your desire to discriminate against gay folks, but this is a breathtaking level of idiotic.

Accusing someone of “discrimanting” for… I can’t even figure out the level of stupid that this made sense to.

What’s amazing is that you’ll post something like this, yet never actually post any sort of irrefutable proof or even the hint of it.

Why is it only one side that has to prove anything and not the ones making the initial proposition?

Why doesn’t the person making the “unnatural” argument have to provide proof?

Well lets see if this helps you

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156265#{“itemid”:["001-156265"]}

16. The Constitutional Court considered Article 2 of the Italian Constitution, which provided that the Republic recognises and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person, as an individual and in social groups where personality is expressed, as well as the duties of political, economic and social solidarity against which there was no derogation. It noted that by social group one had to understand any form of community, simple or complex, intended to enable and encourage the free development of any individual by means of relationships. Such a notion included homosexual unions, understood as a stable cohabitation of two people of the same sex, who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple, obtaining – in time and by the means and limits to be set by law – juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties. However, this recognition, which necessarily requires general legal regulation aimed at setting out the rights and duties of the partners in a couple, could be achieved in other ways apart from the institution of marriage between homosexuals. As shown by the different systems in Europe, the question of the type of recognition was left to regulation by Parliament, in the exercise of its full discretion. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court clarified that without prejudice to Parliament’s discretion, it could however intervene according to the principle of equality in specific situations related to a homosexual couple’s fundamental rights, where the same treatment of married couples and homosexual couples was called for. The court would in such cases assess the reasonableness of the measures.

This says that they should have the same rights as staight couples but leave it up to the country’s government on how they define it but they must provide that right.

Right and Wrong, Morals, doesn’t exist in nature either.

As always, the point of marriage is this: To legally create a family with another person outside of your family, so they can share in the same rights and privileges as the rest of your family” That’s it. lol your discrimanting…why limit it to people outside your family. As long as it is two consenting adults why does it matter if it’s family or not. You’re discrimanting.

The Court also has said that the government should test the prevailing community interest (will of the people, essentially) and balance that against the interests of the gay community.

Maybe Mike doesn’t understand law that is why I encouraged him to read the recent EHRC rulings and go to a lwayer to get an understanding. I’ve basically pointed out the position of the EHRC and he says it’s not true lol.

That’s how this works. If you’re going to present something as a fact, you back it up with evidence. If not we can dismiss it as false.

For example: Your nebulous reference to “The Natural and Unnatural Order” was made without anything to back it up. Therefore, especially given “Nightlily”‘s reply with examples that show that your position is wrong and can, thus, be dismissed.

Unless you have some sort of evidence to back up your position?

You can’t say “It’s unnatural” and then go “We can’t compare ourselves to nature”

That’s just not fair.

Secondly, I HAVE explained this. You just didn’t see it perhaps. I’m not in the habit of restating my entire position over and over. Furthermore, if you really desire to know what I’m referring to, how about reading up on it? It would be most beneficial and educational for you and I mean that sincerely.

Many are under the false assumption that access to marriage is a human right…the European Court says it is NOT. Oliari and others versus Italy 2015 restates this.

The Court also has said that the government should test the prevailing community interest (will of the people, essentially) and balance that against the interests of the gay community. ONCE this has been done, then you have a measurable margin of appreciation, meaning you have a basis for determining how the European Convention law fits into Bermuda law. The court has previously indicated that a referendum is a perfectly acceptable way to accomplish this.

Only after we’ve determined what people want for marriage in Bermuda should any legislative changes be made.

The ECHR Oliari v. Italy, is that Italy should pass a civil partnership law. HOWEVER, the EHRC SAID, but there is NO RIGHT to MARRY for SAME-SEX couples.

“Could be achieved in other ways apart from the institution of marriage between homosexuals.”

Again there is no HUMAN RIGHT for Same-Sex couples to have access to marriage or the institution of marriage.

What you pointed out is the case for Civil Unions. Which is clear this government is pursuing Civil Unions rather than marriage partially based on this very recent ruling in Italy.

Again there are no rights to access to marriage. Also to clear something up…this ruling is not about given Same-Sex couples the SAME RIGHTS of opposite sex marriage. It’s about given recognition to these couples. Not SAME RIGTHS because civil unions do not provide the SAME RIGHTS but some.

Now if you want to have a debate about civil unions we can do that.

You are truly disgusting.

Acting like gay folks made a mistake in choosing the rainbow…

no, you know what? Here’s why it’s false. Why everything you wrote is false…

Your position is that the gay community instigated this and religious folks are innocent victims.

The reverse is true. Religious people have persecuted and oppressed and – as we’re seeing now – denied equal access to rights to gay people for years.

“Homosexuality and religion have clashed for many years.” you say. You’re right. But it’s not “homosexuality” that is instigating these clashes. Gay folks just want to get on with their lives. It’s certain religious folks that keep stepping in and treating gay folks like they don’t deserve equality.

THAT is why your whole post is wrong.

And disrespectful.

My “response” hasn’t changed. I keep getting yelled at for saying the same thing over and over.
So, that is wrong.

The next sentence makes no sense. We’re talking about consenting adults entering into a legal arrangement. See the word “Consenting”? That is an integral part of the whole thing.
Saying it’s not is… well, it’s just wrong. And saying that people can consent before death… to have their corpse get married? Is just… it’s not even wrong. It’s just… not a thing.
And animals cannot give consent. They can’t. They cannot willingly enter into a legal arrangement. I don’t know how you can argue otherwise. I mean… this doesn’t make any sense.

Then the last one…
“Essentially we need to realize what the point is of marriage…”

As always, the point of marriage is this: To legally create a family with another person outside of your family, so they can share in the same rights and privileges as the rest of your family” That’s it.

“and it’s basis in society”

That’s it. Same Sex Marriage won’t change that “basis”. It’ll just create more stable, committed, legal relationships, which, I think we’ll all agree, is good for society.

“…religion…”

Won’t affect the religious aspect of marriage in any way. No one is looking to take away the church’s protections. If they do, you’ll find me fighting on your side.

“…and nature…”

Marriage doesn’t exist in nature. It’s a man-made construct.

“…and then any rights that flow from that will be good and appropriate rather than just something that we want do.”

But marriage is all about “something we want to do”. I wanted to get married to my wife and she wanted to get married to me, so we did. It was something we wanted to do.
Why shouldn’t our gay brothers and sisters be allowed to do the same?

Your use of the word ‘appropriate’, as well as the “purpose” stuff and “nature” stuff makes me think you might be trying to make a thinly veiled procreation argument with this.
I hope not. Because, as has been explained many times, that is not a requirement for marriage.

“…We should all know that just because we desire something does not mean that it is good or beneficial.”

First off, being beneficial to society isn’t a requirement either.
Secondly, are you saying that SSM isn’t beneficial or good?

If so, why?

Personally, I think it is. Increased equality, tolerance and respect for each other is good for society. Stable, committed relationships are good for society.

How would it be bad?

In this case, same sex couples DON’T actually have rights. Not equal rights. They do not have equal access to the rights and privileges afforded by marriage, with the person of their choice.

No one is asking for their rights to be considered before or above the majority.
Legalizing same sex marriage won’t affect anyone else’s rights in any way.
It won’t affect anyone else’s marriage in any way.

It’s not equal on both sides.

One side is supporting the denial of rights. The other is supporting equal access to rights.

Or vice versa. I don’t want to assume.

No, it’s not me that gets to decide what is true. Reality does that. When things are proveable and correct, backed up with evidence, they are true. When they are outright lies and misinformation, like what “Daylily” posts, they are not. It’s not a difficult concept.

The next bit is nothing more than a bizarre, false, completely made up ad hominem, lashing out like a toddler.
The next bit is incorrect in every way. We’re not talking about God. I’ve defended your right to believe in your God many, many times. I don’t hate your God. I just don’t believe in Him. I can’t hate Him any more than you can hate Superman. We’re talking about the rights and privileges afforded by marriage, which are currently denied to a certain group of citizens of this island for absolutely no reason. God doesn’t bestow these privileges and rights, Government does.
The next bit is more bizarre, false nonsense, exposing your complete ignorance of this topic.

Then we go to the next paragraph.
Daylily is NOT right. That’s a default statement.
Not only is consummation is not a requirement for marriage, ss couples can, in fact, consummate.

Then you say that the purpose of intercourse is reproduction.
Not only is this incorrect (_A_ purpose of it is, but it isn’t the ONLY purpose), it has nothing to do with the subject. Reproduction isn’t a requirement of marriage.
Then you lash out childishly and ignorantly again, saying I cannot reproduce.
Are you saying I’m gay? I’m not. I don’t need to be gay to support SSM.

Then the last sentence… is just gibberish.

Ok. Enjoy the rest of your day.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156265#{“itemid”:["001-156265"]}

16. The Constitutional Court considered Article 2 of the Italian Constitution, which provided that the Republic recognises and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person, as an individual and in social groups where personality is expressed, as well as the duties of political, economic and social solidarity against which there was no derogation. It noted that by social group one had to understand any form of community, simple or complex, intended to enable and encourage the free development of any individual by means of relationships. Such a notion included homosexual unions, understood as a stable cohabitation of two people of the same sex, who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple, obtaining – in time and by the means and limits to be set by law – juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties. However, this recognition, which necessarily requires general legal regulation aimed at setting out the rights and duties of the partners in a couple, could be achieved in other ways apart from the institution of marriage between homosexuals. As shown by the different systems in Europe, the question of the type of recognition was left to regulation by Parliament, in the exercise of its full discretion. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court clarified that without prejudice to Parliament’s discretion, it could however intervene according to the principle of equality in specific situations related to a homosexual couple’s fundamental rights, where the same treatment of married couples and homosexual couples was called for. The court would in such cases assess the reasonableness of the measures.

This says that they should have the same rights as staight couples but leave it up to the country’s government on how they define it but they must provide that right.

You don’t have to change your thinking, or accommodate anyone. You just have to mind your own business.

That sounds like some seriously privileged oppressive sh*te right there.

WOW

Now imagine a white American is saying that about Black Americans with the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

NOOOOOOPE

Species which display homosexuality: Bison, Brown bears, Brown rats, Cavy, Caribou, Domestic Cats, Domestic Cattle, Chimpanzees, Common dolphins, Common marmoset, Dogs, Elephants, Foxes, Giraffes, Goats, Domestic Horses, Human, Koalas, Lions, Orcas, Raccoons, Barn owls, Chickens, Common gulls, Emu, House sparrow, Kestrels, King penguins, Mallards, Ostriches, Ravens, Rock doves, Seagulls, Amazon molly, Blackstripe topminnow, Bluegill sunfish, Char, Grayling, European bitterling, Green swordtail, Guiana leaf fish, Houting whitefish, Jewel fish, Least darter (Microperca punctulata), Salmon, Southern platyfish, Ten-spined stickleback, Three-spined stickleback, Anoles, Bearded dragons, Blue-tailed day gecko (Phelsuma cepediana), Broad-headed skinks, Checkered whiptail lizards, Chihuahuan spotted whiptail lizards, Common amebas, Common garter snake, Cuban green anole, Desert grassland whiptail lizard, Desert tortoise, Fence lizard, Five-lined skink, Gold dust day gecko (Phelsuma laticauda), Gopher (pine) snake, Green anole, Inagua curlytail lizard, Jamaican giant anole, Laredo striped whiptail lizard, Largehead anole, Mourning gecko, Plateau striped whiptail lizard, Red diamond rattlesnake, Red-tailed skink, Side-blotched lizard, Speckled rattlesnake, Water moccasin, Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridian), Western banded gecko, Whiptail lizards, Wood turtles, Appalachian woodland salamander, Black-spotted frog, Mountain dusky salamander, Tengger desert toad, Alfalfa weevils, Australian parasitic wasps, Bean weevils, Bedbug and other bugs, Blister beetles, Blowflies, Broadwinged damselflies, Cabbage (small) white (butterfly), Checkerspot butterflies, Club-tailed dragonflies, Cockroaches, Common skimmer dragonflies, Creeping water bugs, Cutworms, Digger bees, Dragonflies, Eastern giant ichneumon wasps, Eucalyptus long horned borders, Field crickets, Flour beetles, Fruit flies, Glasswing butterflies, Hypoponera opacior ants, Grape berry moths, Grape borers, Green lacewings, Hen fleas, House flies, Ichneumon wasps, Japanese scarab beetles, Larch bud moths, Large milkweed bugs, Long-legged flies, Mazarine blues, Mexican white (butterfly), Migratory locusts, Monarch butterflies, Narrow-winged damselfly, Parsnip leaf miner, Pomace fly, Queen butterfly, Red ant, Red flour beetle, Reindeer warble fly (Hypoderma tarandi), Rose chafer, Rove beetles, Scarab beetle (melolonthine), Screwworm fly, Silkworm moth, Southeastern blueberry bee, Southern green stink bug, Southern masked chafer, Southern one-year cane grub, Spreadwinged damselfly, Spruce budworm moth, Stable fly, Stag beetle, Tsetse fly, Water boatman bug, Water strider, Blood-fluke, Box crabs, Harvest spiders, Hawaiian orb-weaver (spider), Incirrate octopus, Jumping spiders, Mites, and Spiny-headed worms.

In case you’re out of the loop: most of his work has been disproven. But that’s for trying. You get 2 more chances!

GO TO YOUR ROOM

Homosexual animals species include:

Bison, Brown bears, Brown rats, Cavy, Caribou, Domestic Cats, Domestic Cattle, Chimpanzees, Common dolphins, Common marmoset, Dogs, Elephants, Foxes, Giraffes, Goats, Domestic Horses, Human, Koalas, Lions, Orcas, Raccoons, Barn owls, Chickens, Common gulls, Emu, House sparrow, Kestrels, King penguins, Mallards, Ostriches, Ravens, Rock doves, Seagulls, Amazon molly, Blackstripe topminnow, Bluegill sunfish, Char, Grayling, European bitterling, Green swordtail, Guiana leaf fish, Houting whitefish, Jewel fish, Least darter (Microperca punctulata), Salmon, Southern platyfish, Ten-spined stickleback, Three-spined stickleback, Anoles, Bearded dragons, Blue-tailed day gecko (Phelsuma cepediana), Broad-headed skinks, Checkered whiptail lizards, Chihuahuan spotted whiptail lizards, Common amebas, Common garter snake, Cuban green anole, Desert grassland whiptail lizard, Desert tortoise, Fence lizard, Five-lined skink, Gold dust day gecko (Phelsuma laticauda), Gopher (pine) snake, Green anole, Inagua curlytail lizard, Jamaican giant anole, Laredo striped whiptail lizard, Largehead anole, Mourning gecko, Plateau striped whiptail lizard, Red diamond rattlesnake, Red-tailed skink, Side-blotched lizard, Speckled rattlesnake, Water moccasin, Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridian), Western banded gecko, Whiptail lizards, Wood turtles, Appalachian woodland salamander, Black-spotted frog, Mountain dusky salamander, Tengger desert toad, Alfalfa weevils, Australian parasitic wasps, Bean weevils, Bedbug and other bugs, Blister beetles, Blowflies, Broadwinged damselflies, Cabbage (small) white (butterfly), Checkerspot butterflies, Club-tailed dragonflies, Cockroaches, Common skimmer dragonflies, Creeping water bugs, Cutworms, Digger bees, Dragonflies, Eastern giant ichneumon wasps, Eucalyptus long horned borders, Field crickets, Flour beetles, Fruit flies, Glasswing butterflies, Hypoponera opacior ants, Grape berry moths, Grape borers, Green lacewings, Hen fleas, House flies, Ichneumon wasps, Japanese scarab beetles, Larch bud moths, Large milkweed bugs, Long-legged flies, Mazarine blues, Mexican white (butterfly), Migratory locusts, Monarch butterflies, Narrow-winged damselfly, Parsnip leaf miner, Pomace fly, Queen butterfly, Red ant, Red flour beetle, Reindeer warble fly (Hypoderma tarandi), Rose chafer, Rove beetles, Scarab beetle (melolonthine), Screwworm fly, Silkworm moth, Southeastern blueberry bee, Southern green stink bug, Southern masked chafer, Southern one-year cane grub, Spreadwinged damselfly, Spruce budworm moth, Stable fly, Stag beetle, Tsetse fly, Water boatman bug, Water strider, Blood-fluke, Box crabs, Harvest spiders, Hawaiian orb-weaver (spider), Incirrate octopus, Jumping spiders, Mites, and Spiny-headed worms.