Denying same-sex couples the ability to be married, even if other legal means to recognize the relationship are available amounts to discriminating against human beings and stigmatizing their relationships.

That’s my view on the matter.

Instead of taking a step this SSM group wants to take a large leap forward straight for marriage.

I don’t think civil partnerships need to be a discussion at this point. You can use that ECHR Italy ruling when civil partnerships are the focus of discussion. Then we can have a discussion on civil partnerships.

But thanks for the respectable conversation.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Getting the same access to rights as the rest of us isn’t special treatment.

But do they have a say in other people’s lives and relationships?

ABSOLUTELY not.

The point is that the ability to have kids is not a requirement for marriage, so using that as a reason to stop same sex couples from getting married is wrong.

AND, allowing them to get married will in absolutely no way stop society from surviving as nature intended (which is a faith-based anthropomorphism. Nature doesn’t have intentions. But let’s leave that out for now.) because opposite sex couples will STILL be able to have kids. Same Sex Marriage will have absolutely NO effect on that.

So… how is this a reason to stop folks from getting married?

They’re simply asking for equal rights and protections under the law.
That’s it.

Oh, and procreation or the ability to do so isn’t a stipulation or requirement for marriage, so this isn’t really an argument to not allow folks to get married.

You say “…at the detriment of themselves and society as a whole.”, but don’t explain how allowing people to get married to the person they love would be a detriment to others and society as a whole…

Why is that?

Simple as that.

The ruling below from July 2015 upholds the position taken by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 in which The European Court of Human Rights, when discussing the role of the judiciary when considering SSM in Europe stated:

“…as matters stand, the question whether
or not to allow same-sex marriage is left
to regulation by the national law of the
Contracting State. In that connection, the Court
observes that marriage has deep-rooted social
and cultural connotations which may differ
largely from one society to another. The Court
reiterates that it must not rush to substitute its
own judgment in place of that of the national
authorities, who are best placed to assess and
respond to the needs of society…” *

* ECtHR, Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, Application no 30141/04, judgment of 24 June 2010.

That is equal rights…we all have a right to a phone call and a lawyer too.

That is equal rights.

oh and a call for a referendum is a discriminatory act in its own right. If the traditional marriage folks want to go that way then I call for a referendum for Bermudians to chose the religion they want for our country, all other religions will then be outlawed, and it needs to be the actual faith, methodist, AME etc. if Anglican wins then we can convert the catholic church into a community centre etc.

of course the first thing out of the hypocrites mouth would be freedom of religion.

In this case replace social etiquette with compassion for other humans…

You should be ashamed of yourself

You should be ashamed for using such a tact since you are not only trying stimagtize gays but people who have to deal with this very serious disease

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in June, there was no real confusion regarding the US Court’s authority or the scope of its jurisdiction – enforcement of Same Sex Marriage in the UNITED STATES(enforcement of the ruling has been another matter entirely). But the situation is murkier with the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court has left it up to the individual countries to decide the legality of Same Sex marriage. Significantly, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the recent case of Oliari and Others v. Italy that Italy is obligated to legally recognize and protect SAME SEX UNIONS, the judgment did not call for marriage equality. The issue of Same Sex Marriage is to be left up to the individual member countries to decide.

Therefore, given the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and the current division within the community on this matter , it is only fitting that the issue of SSM be decided by a referendum – not by any special interest group that is either for – or against the issue.

Equality for all!

Love eachother.

Toodles!

MARRIAGE* is a contract issued between two people by the STATE (in this case Bermuda). The religious ceremony is nothing with out the marriage LICENSE. So no…..the Church should not have any say in if this is allowed or not.

However, churches can decided if/if not they want to have same sex couples hold religious ceremonies in their place of worship.

Inter-racial marriages/relationships are widely accepted now – compared to in the past.

Following a book from thousands of years ago, which as been translated multiple times, has talking snakes, stoned women and promotes worshiping a spirit(ghost)? OH in a place that expects you to “give donations” (PAY) so boss man can ride around in a new BMW??? Religion is corrupt!!!!!

Absolutely ridiculous and highly shameful of you.

THIS ‘cup of tea anyone?’ Supports marriage equality

Toodles!