Let Them Wed

Following the recent furore about gay marriage in the US, homosexual couples in Bermuda must have been wondering about the chance of ever being able to obtain legal recognition of their relationships here. If so, they were dealt a blow by Family Services Minister Patrice Minors yesterday. Speaking at a press conference on the International Year of the Family, Mrs. Minors said

"It is not my intention during my term as Minister to have [gay unions] introduced legislatively... [If approached by members of the community to consider it] it wouldn't receive an endorsement from me. I do not believe [a family with two gay heads of house] to be representative of a family based on moral values."

Such an attitude is sad, but not surprising. Bermuda is arguably more homophobic than the US, largely a result of the strong fundamentalist Christian beliefs held by many Bermudians. Homosexuality between males was only legalised here in 1994; previously the penalty for consensual homosexual sex between males over the age of 21 was up to ten years imprisonment.

As the Economist points out in an excellent editorial this week, the case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one pair of loving adults be denied the right to make the same commitment to each other, and to society, that other adults, equal in all other ways, are allowed to do? In what way would allowing them to do so "damage" the institution of marriage? It's skyrocketing divorce rates that are damaging marriage, not gays.

Some Bermudians may be shocked by the prospect of gay couples holding hands or kissing in public, never mind the idea of seeing them wed. Mrs. Minors called for a return to "good, old-fashioned family moral values". But the thought of interracial marriages used to be just as shocking; they were only legalised in the 1960s. Who now would suggest a return to good old-fashioned values of race?

Comments

[jake on 01.03.04 at 15:15]

Politics.bm is incorrect in saying that the UBP was the champion of change on the issue of gay sex. In fact, the UBP leadership of the time, Sir John Swan, and many Cabinet members like C.V. "Jim" Woolridge were distinctly against decriminalizing gay male sex. The PLP leader of the day, L. Frederick Wade, was in support, as were key members, Lois Browne Evans, Jennifer Smith and Renee Webb. They were heavily criticized by the churches, and they did not lose significant support.

Dr. Stubbs' bill was not a party political issue, and the lines were drawn on the basis of members' own beliefs. In fact, it was a motion from the backbench made without UBP Cabinet support.

Both parties have conservative members. Similarly, both parties have supporters from the gay and lesbian community. This is an issue that the community must wrestle with, and not easy to define along party political lines.

[JJ on 01.03.04 at 18:56]

"a return to good old-fashioned family moral values" Perhaps Ms Minors should focus her attention on the number of unmarried, (by choice in many cases) single mothers if she wishes to promote the former.

[Chris on 04.03.04 at 13:09]

Well here we go again. I was there when we were fighting for the Stubbs Bill and had to listen to people, whom I had known all my life, and who knew me, tell me that I was a sinner, a pervert and going to hell. Well now that I am leagally allowed to love whom I choose, I am now told that I will not be allowed to marry them. Funny , if I were a gay man who decided one day to marry a woman and have a baby, but sneak around behind the mother's back with other men, well that would be OK. And if I were a straight man who enjoyed having so many women on the side, well that is morally OK. And well I see very few comments on lesbians having children. Maybe that's OK.

Well after living overseas for three years, I am returning home. My lover of two years is unable to because HE is not a Bermudian. But that is OK we love each other enough that distance and small minded political and church folk will not keep us a part. And as for Ms. Minors and her stance on my private life. Madam do not worry you are not invited to my wedding, you need not buy a gift, as I will return it.
As for the government of the day and the loyal opposition, who all seem to think they are so morally superior, becareful about dictating what happens in my bedroom, because there are so many of you who have all sorts of things hiding under your beds and in your clostes. I am a pround man who lives my life with honor, truth and a clear conscience. I will love whom I choose to. I am a Bermudian from a family that reaches back at least seven generations and you will grant me my human rights and my equality.

[Eric on 04.03.04 at 13:54]

For those that haven't seen this amusing link yet, it is relevant and mocks at the simple mindedness of those against gay marriages:

12 Reasons Why Gays Shouldn't Be Allowed To Marry

[ninja on 27.11.04 at 22:51]

What people fail tp realalize is that the stand against same sex relationships is not a church position of its own, but that of the very one who created us male and female. Would one put their fist up to the creator and call him homophobic? Those who sneak around on their spouce or engage in sexual relationships out side the bounds of marrage will all suffer the same fate if unrepented of their actions.We need to stop placing our focus on what we preceive as wrong or right. It makes no differance if we as a people turn a blind eye to divorce or what ever. God will have the finnal say and there is no one on the face of this Earth who will be able to defend their actions. So you can continue on with your reasons for supporting same sex attractions, try reasoning it with God and see how you measure up. Why wont you take some time and do an indepth study on the subject of homosexuality.Or better still invest into researching the "Gay Gene" you will find that it does not exist. I as a christian am against any thing immoral and it just so happens that homosexuallity is one of them. I do beleive in loving the sinner and hating the sin. And I can say this because I am the PROUD parent of a gay child whom I love deeply but pray for daily.

[big bad wolf on 28.11.04 at 09:34]

Ninja you can have your own beliefs but you are wrong about the gay gene. The biggest threat to gay life in the future is not the church but science. One day in the not too distant future, we will be testing children in the womb to make sure these children are not gay.Nature serves up ten percent of our population in both sexes as gay. These people are some of the most gifted and brillant individuals that have ever walked the earth.All humans deserve equal human rights and those that are in same sex relatioships are no exception.The path to God is not owned by Christians but by all that find their own way through other religions and free thinking on first cause. More harm than good has been done on this earth by humans in the name of Christ.I never will trust orgainized religion any more than I trust anynGovernment. Life is a singular path where those with true courage find their own way. If we are fortunate enough to have good friends and loves and strong families so much the richer the tapestry.

[akinola on 21.03.05 at 17:12]

This why women are circumcised throughtout africa to reduced lesbianism. But they call this barbaric. A rat cannot fight an elephant. Homosexuality will be outlawed under Independence.

[sandy on 09.09.05 at 00:51]

.......a return to good old-fashioned family moral values....???

God help Me!!!!!

Patrice, I didn't realize you held these kinds of opinions. So what's next in your personal opinion folder that you will foist upon us???

Patrice...you should speak to your party collegues and represent them properly. This country is full of peaceful gay people that contribute more to our society that many others. You need to get over the physical disgust that you were brought up to believe and try taking a a harder look through that paradigm.

someone earleir mentioned how interracial relationships were viewed 30-40+years ago. Doesn't your opinion of Gay marriage seem similar. ...........sooo.... you would understand discrimination, right??

Being gay is not that carnal imagery that you were raised to see in your mind everytime you thought someone was gay. Being Gay is like being gay, just like being black is like being black, or being short is being short, its what makes you different.
I presume that our parliamentarians roughly represent a random sample of our population. Just imagine how many gay people live on this tiny homophobic island. Gosh, how can you sit up in the house with all those gay political people...

I'm straight, but I can tell you that your comments are making me feel like i need to be gay to take up the fight.

Human Rights & Discrimination are something a Minister really needs to study and understand. Please do some studying.

Sandy

[Bill Cook on 09.09.05 at 09:53]

Chris,

Surely you confuse love with sex ?

Since when has it been illegal to love ?

The institution of marriage was created to hold the male and female together so that the eventual offspring would be nurtured until maturity, it was really for that security and the stabilising effect on society I believe.

Two males cannot produce children in spite of possibly many spirited efforts.

If two persons of the same sex feel that they want to enter into a commitment most people would not object.
That some legal form could be created so that partners would have equal protection under law as do heterosexual couples.

If homosexuality were natural one wonders what then if everyone was then the human race would become extinct (now there's an idea)

I am far from convinced that homosexuals are any more gifted than heterosexuals, it is a very puzzling thing that.

I went to art school as part of my education in design in the printing industry and in the class there were some who seemed to be gay but the majority were not.

There does seem to be a trend towards employment that attracts gays but then there are gays in all kinds of jobs so its not easy to define.

While I support equal rights respect is earned by behaviour whatever ones sexual orientation.

Its odd that women holding hands and kissing is no big deal its not the case for males and I dont think I am ready for that on Bermuda's streets. Call me old fashioed but I am too old to change.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 09.09.05 at 10:02]

Well Bill...thanks now we know what you will kiss and what you won't kiss.Next time you fly look around at the Cabin Crew...You will find a happy gay bunch!

[joe blow on 09.09.05 at 10:54]

What's so funny about this is the number of gays in the current government.

[Blovator on 10.09.05 at 21:25]

When we get to heaven we will all have to explain our infringment of various laws and prejudices apparently held by God against his creations. In the mean time, if we are truly humble, we have no way of controlling or distingishing our sins, so vile are we. So why don't we accept gay marriage and let it be. Two men or two women can love each other. So can a man and a woman. If only a man and a woman can love then love is perverse and fundamentally sexual. Lets try to support and help each other on earth, and then we get to heaven we can say that our moral decisions were those of our considered will and conscience, instead of the safe and heartless emulation of the Bible. If you go to hell for considering the position of your nieghbor and accepting he or she, then God is the devil, as has often been supposed. And all organized religion is decadent.

[Bill Cook on 10.09.05 at 22:13]

Blovator,

All organised religion is decadent.

Well blind belief in authority is a primary reason for that.

There is only one good ... knowledge
and only one evil... ignorance.

If God wanted people to believe in him, why'd he invent logic?

Personally my idea of Hell is living for eternity!

[Uncle Elvis on 11.09.05 at 01:44]

The Creator's greatest gift to mankind is free will.
Personally, MY God is a forgiving God. When the time comes for me to face him, he will welcome me with open arms, no matter what.

Isn't that what the story of the Prodigal Son is about?

Who was it that told that story again?

Hey, it's hard enough to find someone to love in this world, let alone someone that's willing to make a lifelong committment to putting up with all our shit.
Let everyone marry. Come on... who's it going to hurt?

[Bill Cook on 11.09.05 at 08:51]

"The creators greatest gift to mankind is free will"

The survivars of the holocaust the nuclear bombing of Japan the genocide in Africa the countless billions killed and maimed in wars and the millions dying annually from tobacca and other drugs may with good reason disagree with you.

Who could blame nature for trying to abort its most destructive living creatures with all manner of natural disasters ?

In my opinion if one loves another the theatrics of marriage is superflous, we used to simply jump over a broom here in Bermuda to marry and reverse that to divorce, all we have done since is create wealth for exploiters and divorce lawyers.

Who defines love ?

I am still in love with the lady I fell in love with and she has left this world and we never married.

In my opinion there is far too much sex without love and not enough love without sex in particularly the homosexual world.

[Slowhand on 11.09.05 at 10:05]

"Personally, MY God is a forgiving God. When the time comes for me to face him, he will welcome me with open arms, no matter what."

If this were true, what purpose do we serve existing as we do. God has a purpose, and while there are different interpretations as to what that purpose is, just doing whatever we want only to be forgiven in the end surely cannot be it. God gave us laws to live by, not to keep and break as we see fit with no repercussions. God also has told us there is an unforgivable sin.....

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 11.09.05 at 10:13]

Sex has nothing to do with LOVE.....Bill it will probably be hard find to find another love match. I know she is still with you in your mind and you talk to her every day. Maybe soon a new chapter will show itself and you will travel down a new road of adventure.The comparison will never be needed as we can love many people without forgeting those we love in another life.

[Bill Cook on 11.09.05 at 10:51]

Wolfie,

I dont think that love and sex are unrelated but I do think that sex without love is pretty hollow and in a way sex is the eventual culmination of real love.

I have been quite a notorious hound dog in my youth so can speak with a little authority.

You have good perception and others have expressed similar advise but you know how hard in life it is to make and keep a true friend how much more difficult is is to find true love.

Yes I do speak to her not every day but often and she herself being the person she was said much the same as you have.

My real sympathy lies with those people who have unfortunately never experienced real love and those who really have no real understanding of it.

Logic and love are not always compatable I feel.

[Blovator on 11.09.05 at 12:20]

Its a little disengenuous to accuse homsexuals of having too much sex without love when the whole heterosexual culture is drenched with sexual imagery, ideas and purposes. The expression of thier culture in general, is suppressed. Hetrosexual culture is not. What does Hetro culture do with its freedom? Display sex without love. Exactly what they accuse homosexual culture of practicing. In hetros it is a virtue, in gays, it is a vice. Hetros then say that they agree that there is too much sex in the media. Thats not an arguement. It still doesn't explain the double standard.

[Ethiops on 11.09.05 at 12:58]

Well, Patrice sounds like a big idiot if I ever heard one. She and those like her are what anchor this island in its ignorance. People and their so called shame based morals usually have none when really needed, ain’t she a great example?
Where do you draw the line on acceptance of others? Are you that stupid to think in 2005 being gay isn't a natural part of mankind’s makeup? When do straight people decide that they're straight? They don't. People don't wake up one day after living a straight life and go "I think I’ll have some meat in my soup tonight," unless you're bi.
As long as we continue to keep people out of the shady mold of what’s moral we'll always be a separatist society. So some people base their fragile value system on a 2000yrs old book that has the shadiest of origins. And, well over 3/4 have no clue the bible is only a story of the suns voyage throughout the year in relation to the planets, and that jesus is a story of the sun and not the son.
Blind faith is the absence of all logic. Likewise when you know something you don't believe you know it you just know it because the image of logic is clear for all to see. Xian’s and their faith is so unclear they write millions of other books to help clarify the potholes in this fragile faith.
When church was separated from state it was done for a reason. Are we trying to rekindle the old oppressive ways of the past? Do Xian’s need to hold a cloak of shame based tactics over other members of society in order to feel whole within theirs. Funny the very all inclusive principle’s they spout about having go flying out the window when time to put into action comes around at their doorstep.
If you ask me it’s like it’s the heterosexuals that are too sissy to step their game up.
Maybe the Xian god is gay too, look how long he took to make eve, and lets not even start with where he hid the male g-spot.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 11.09.05 at 13:16]

Love is an act of tenderness and giving....expressions of it come in many forms.

[Bill Cook on 11.09.05 at 13:39]

Blovator,

It is a tricky subject and it only really got highlighted following the death of Rock Hudson from aids.

When trying to trace the source of aids much research went into human behaviour.

When the gay communities activities were examined it was found that actual sexual activity illustrated that the sex partners in bath houses and similar places was very considerably more proflific with homosexuals than with heterosexuals and many books and documentaries were produced about this.

Some sex partners had 30 or more sexual encounters in one weekend, and one french Canadian airline stewart had infected literally 100's of others.

My conclusion therefore was that love played no role in this activity, but I am no authority and others may be, but this was the information I had read.

[Ethiops on 11.09.05 at 14:03]

From the radio free michcigan archives

Designer diseases

The AIDS epidemic emerged full-blown in the three U.S. cities with "organized gay communities" before being reported elsewhere,
including Haiti or Africa, so it is epidemiologically impossible for either of those countries to be the origin point for the U.S. infections.

Another indication AIDS had multiple origin points is that the 14-month doubling time of the disease cannot nearly account for
the current number of cases if we assume only a small number of initial infections starting in the late 1970s.

Apparently, through vaccines homosexuals were an initial target in the U.S. because their sexual practices would help in the rapid spread of the disease, and because it was correctly assumed that very few non-homosexual citizens would pay much attention during the early years of the epidemic. Also, the stigma of a "homosexual
disease" would interfere with rational analysis and discussion of AIDS. Bear in mind that homosexuals were among the first to be
exterminated in Nazi Germany, before Jews or other minorities, so fewer citizens would object.

http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/the_aids_conspiracy/aidsgate.html
for the rest of this read thats been hard to get a hold of in mainstream media

[Blovator on 11.09.05 at 15:26]

I'm not sure why sexual promiscuity or the origin of Aids has anything to do with a homosexual's right to marriage. Two points occur to me:

1. Marriage has only been lately so closely associated with love. Throught most of its history, its purpose was either sexual or economic. Certainly love was occasionally considered but it was not the reason for getting married.

2. I would have thought that when a partner can take his, her husband/wife to court for infidelity that would put a damper on the promiscuity you see as abstractly wrong.

As for Aids being caused by homosexual activity, Ethiops, if that is true, I would then accuse people who breath of causing TB or people who eat for causing botcillism. Lets stamp out this rampant eating and breathing!

[Ethiops on 11.09.05 at 15:36]

Blovator you're right one thing has nothing to do with the other I merely found the read interesting thus posted it. As for the aids bit being caused by homosexuality, I can't remember implying that, then again I may have not really got what you're saying. I am kinda drinking while typing ... work with me on this one

[Bill Cook on 11.09.05 at 16:05]

Blovator,

You may not be interested but I believe Thabo Mbeki has an opening on his public relations board that you may be fully qualified for, no?
oh, ok just thought I would mention it in passing.

[Longtime Lurker on 11.09.05 at 16:15]

Bill,

I think that you're barking up the wrong tree when you say that marriage was designed in order to support reproduction. While that may have been the original role, I don't think that it is the BEST role that marriage can take in society - that being to unite two individuals who are in love - and we should allow it some flexibility.

To say that marriage is purely for reproduction would indicate that once a couple ages to the point when they will not have any more children, their marriage should be invalidated, despite any lingering feelings that the two have for each other. This seems wrong.

I know a wonderful lesbian couple in the US who were legally married in Canada. Despite this, their marriage may never be recognized in their own country in their lifetime. Aside from that, their choices of where to live and who to work for are limited by which states and companies offer domestic partnership benefits. They may not even be able to both be legal parents when they have a child.

One answer would seem to be to create a separate legal entity (civil unions) just for gay couples. I can't support this, though, as it screams "separate but equal", which we all have realized is wrong. The message is clear - fine, we'll give you all the rights that heterosexual couples have, but your union isn't "as good" or "real" like our marriages.

I'm not sure of the statistics on the promiscuity levels of heterosexuals vs. homosexuals, but I wouldn't be shocked if we did see a difference. However, I think that heterosexuals might be more promiscuous too if we were told our entire lives that our love was a sham and that there was no value in our marriages.

I admit that I too am instinctually shocked when I see two guys holding hands or otherwise being affectionate to each other, but I consider this a human flaw of mine, and one that I hope I can change in my lifetime. I certainly don't let it affect my interactions with gay people.

"If homosexuality were natural one wonders what then if everyone was then the human race would become extinct (now there's an idea)" - I see your point here, but I don't think that it's valid. If everyone was male, then the human race would become extinct too - but nobody would say that being a man isn't natural! We see homosexuality among animals too, so I would say that a population having a mix of heterosexuals and homosexuals is in fact natural.

I know that it can be a bit difficult to deal with homosexuality in society, especially when many of us have spent our entire lives being told that it is wrong. All we can do is try our best to be accepting and try to right the wrongs of the past by treating everyone equally.

[blovator on 11.09.05 at 16:38]

Any love, obviously shown, is a bit of a shock to people. Most of life is conducted with out this particular emotion. With good reason, it almost never mentioned in Law, education or business. Why homosexuals should be any different in thier display of love or in thier ignorance of it, than the rest of us, I do not know.

This feeling against homosexual unions is a prejudice of morality. Morality creates a kind of blindness in order to justify it's bizarre dictates. Other human activities which are outlawed or dispised in this way, with absolutely no benefit to anyone are growing and smoking marujuana and prostitution. Niether of those things is eliiminated by law, but my making them illegal we can not regulate it. Thus the law, as the proxy of morality, produces needless misery.

[Cancundreaming on 11.09.05 at 16:39]

Bill,

There were two points that caught my eye from your posts. First, your whole discussion on the 'promiscuity' rate of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals seem wholly irrelevant. 'Promiscuity' may be a vice to you, however you wish to define it (sex outside of marriage, sex outside of an engagement or one nights stands) but i don't see how your personal view of 'promiscuity' has any relevance in how a society at large should define marriage.

Your second point.

"If homosexuality were natural one wonders what then if everyone was then the human race would become extinct (now there's an idea)"

This is a silly argument, nevertheless a popular one. For this argument to be true, you would have to subscribe to the belief that 'gayness' is something you can catch and society's acceptance of homosexuality will only encourage the spread of the 'disease'. On average in any given society, about 10-15% of that society is gay. For this argument to work 10-15% percent would have to turn 85-90% percent of population gay. Surely Bill you don't believe this possible.

[Bill Cook on 11.09.05 at 17:27]

CCD,

I never related promiscuity to marriage I mentioned that it was unlikely that there was love involved in having 30 sexual encounters in a weekend, it just seemed unlikely but I am no expert,it was love and sex I discussed.

If you say that there are 10 to 15% of any given population that are gay can that be substantiated, you are obviously much more knowledgable than I on these matters but that seems quite a lot.

As I have stated in previous posts I believe in fairness and equality and I think that ones sexuality is their own business and quite frankly I really dont want to know but my guess is if you try to force a change in convention you will face opposition.

Life was not meant to be fair life was meant to be life.

I have enough fundamental knowledge to know that its unlikely one can catch gayness but I would be moronic (some think that anyway) to believe that the aids virus is not spread by unprotected sex.

The figures in the southern African countries are staggering now a pandemic.

[Ethiops on 11.09.05 at 18:29]

While systems are usually built with the idea of fairness in mind. What we're talking about is not life but, our system within the realm of it. Like it or not gays have been around expressing their love in secrecy or openly probably since the beginning of time. And, the age of open relationships has always been upon us. Just not many were open to speak of it. Many heterosexuals have open relationships where they allow themselves to see others. Millions of men and women cheat on their spouse everday everywhere. That’s life no doubt. It's not a gay feature. It takes all kinds to make a world, what can you say. At least allow them to have a pact like in Europe that way people in real relations can benefit like hetro couples benefit from the system. People are so petrified of change.
People speak as if gays were smuggle into earth through mars and switched with babies in the hospital. To label someone as un-natural is disrespect. Reminds me of the times men looked at hue or pigment as a code to humanity. And as a result looked at whites as sub-humans for their lack of melanin. The right to be wrong is a precious thing to own. It advances civilization.
If you don't believe that man is capable to create a virus and release it on mankind then you don't believe that however don't make it untrue. Some of the early std's made in america and tested in poor towns allowed to continue even after a cure was found is not new, history repeats itself with progress in numbers of deaths, why am I not surprised.

[smith on 11.09.05 at 18:38]

"I would be moronic (some think that anyway) to believe that the aids virus is not spread by unprotected sex.

The figures in the southern African countries are staggering now a pandemic."

By your 'logic', Africa is populated with a lot of gays.

[Cancundreaming on 11.09.05 at 19:30]

Bill,

"I have enough fundamental knowledge to know that its unlikely one can catch gayness but I would be moronic (some think that anyway) to believe that the aids virus is not spread by unprotected sex."

I skipped over the later part of this passage because i didn't see how it related to the topic of this thread. Again, how are you relating the HIV/Aids virus to gay marriage? Also promiscuity does mean the sex was unprotected. Again so, what's the point of this paragraph again.

In addition, I’m not sure if you do have 'enough fundamental knowledge' if you believe it's only unlikely that you can't catch 'gayness'. I have a good friend who is gay and it hasn't happened yet.

"I never related promiscuity to marriage I mentioned that it was unlikely that there was love involved in having 30 sexual encounters in a weekend"

Again how does this relate at all to gay marriage? Love is a requirement for a good marriage, but can't possibly be a legal requirement. You're likely right that anyone who has had 30 sexual encounters not only in a weekend, but in their entire life did not love every single partner. But again, how does this relate?

"quite frankly I really dont want to know but my guess is if you try to force a change in convention you will face opposition."

I really don't know quite what to say. Well i do but it just seems like a simple point to make on your part and an even simpler point for me to address. Yes you're right, when you try to change 'convention' you will face opposition. But that's been the case for almost every social change or movement. What's your point? Surely, it's not that social change should only be demanded when there's no opposition...

[Bill Cook on 11.09.05 at 20:53]

Smith,

Just how you define my logic to say SA was populated by gays escapes but allow me to make my own mind do not attempt to make it up for me.

I never said that read the post again.

I am not going to continue with this discussion.

I wish all of you the very best in whatever position you wish to take and continued success in whatever change you seek,as you seem very interested,I on the other hand can contribute little more and have less interest.

[Mitchell on 11.09.05 at 21:09]

If I can play Devil's Advocate:

Speaking as a gay man, I have no desire to mimic the heterosexual institution of marriage. The reasons are numerous: in its current state, it ain't a great model; I don't need my relationship to be santcified by society; it is small c conservatism and smacks of a need to conform; heterosexual marriage, in general, tends to impose restricted (and restricting) roles for each partner within the relationship and I see this filtering into the lives of married gay couples; within the gay community it will exploited for its financial benefits, which will bring further anti-gay attacks (there should be other ways of securing the financial beneits heterosexual married couples enjoy); and, finally, the age old arguement that marriage is the ultimate and only way of living life devalues lives lived differently (single mothers being a prime example).

Oh, hell; give it to us if you want. But not all of us want it.

[J Galt on 11.09.05 at 23:13]

"the age old arguement that marriage is the ultimate and only way of living life devalues lives lived differently (single mothers being a prime example}"

Single mothers would be a bad example Mitchell, there are a lot of studies that show "Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families...They show that boys whose fathers were absent from the household had double the odds of being incarcerated - even when other factors such as race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant."

[smith on 12.09.05 at 06:27]

"Just how you define my logic to say SA was populated by gays escapes "

Your 'logic', throughout this thread, has escaped me as well....you just seem to bring up random predjudices you have against gay people, and trumpet them, however related they are to the topic of marriage.
Notice that you the majority of the posts in this thread, yet, when you're challenged, you leave the thread.

[observor on 12.09.05 at 09:50]

Bill

Given the extent of your posting on this board over a vast variety of topics, I'm surprised that you would so quickly choose to take your marbles off the table regarding this one issue. I can only suspect that you are perhaps afraid of offending someone with your point of view. Electing to leave now, however, will only serve to reinforce your current way of thinking and thereby significantly reduce the possibility of revaluating your opinions for the better (or worse).

[silencedogood on 01.11.05 at 16:15]

I'm of the opinion that there is not enough love in the world. If people of the same sex want to love each other I think it can only be a good thing as far as the general happiness of the populace goes. More power to them. If it is a sin, they will have to answer for it, but I'm not God and couldn't say.

When things begin to become official it introduces a new element into the mix because you are basically asking a large majority to sanction behavior it does not approve of. (I'm referring to homosexual activity rather than being homosexual) It is also a different thing for the state to proscribe support rather than prevent discrimination. I imagine many religious people are worried that legalized gay marriage could lead to them being forced to conduct ceremonies against their beliefs or face the courts. I couldn't say what the "right" thing to do is. Civil unions seems to be a logical compromise but raises other issues like gay couples adopting. A complex isuse all around.

Like it or no, this is a strongly religious issue and I firmly believe that the ridiculing of the religious posters is wrong. I'm not particularly religious myself, but they have every right to express their views just as anyone. Not everyone who holds religious views is a zealot or irrational and in many ways holding athiestic views is a religion unto itself.

I take issue with Ethiops in particular for basically saying that anyone religious is an idiot but then arguing that AIDS was genetically engineered to target specific communities. I think the existence of a being who created a universe we barely understand is more likely that some coked out Oliver Stone conspiracy. Don't throw stones in a glass house.

As for this issue in bermuda. It will be a long time, if ever before gay marriage is here. For better or worse, I just don't see it happening.