Invertebrates

What the hell is this UBP bullshit?

The Opposition said they did not speak to a private member's bill that would have outlawed discrimination against homosexuals at the House of Assembly yesterday because they were waiting for a Government Minister to speak to the issue first.

"We were waiting to hear from the Government of the day," [said Opposition Whip John Barritt]. "We wanted to hear from someone on the front bench. When no one stood up that was that and the debate collapsed."

When pressed on the point that it was also the Opposition's job to debate issues of importance to the country, he reiterated that the UBP caucus had decided not to unless someone from the Government spoke. In particular the Opposition was waiting for the Minister in charge of human rights, Dale Butler to speak, he said.

Why? This was supposed to be a conscience vote. The UBP should not have been doing anything as a party. It should have been up to the individual MPs if and when they spoke, not a decision taken in caucus.

However, even if they had not removed the whip from their members, the UBP's stance would still have been cowardly. The Government had no obligation to speak first on this bill. They were not the ones proposing it.

Those UBP members who were out of the chamber when the vote was called should also be ashamed of themselves. Some, including Shadow Works Minister Jon Brunson, were listening to the debate on the radio in the back room at the time.

If this was an issue that they truly believed was important, then they should have made damn sure that their asses weres in the debating chamber when the vote was called. There was plenty of warning that a vote was imminent. Bills may not normally be thrown out in committee, but I don't accept that as an explanation for absence either. On an issue like this, supporters of the bill should have expected that its opponents would take any opportunity to defeat it.

What a pathetic bunch of invertebrates.

Comments

[Bob on 28.05.06 at 07:27]

I thought people who wait for others to lead are followers - surely parliament should be occupied by leaders?

Perhaps they're also waiting to come out of the closet.

[jake on 28.05.06 at 09:09]

I spoke to Jon and he said he wanted to support it. Shame he did not take the chance when he was in the house of Assembly.

The media must not allow this charade of leadership to stand.

Every single member of Parliament must be asked if he or she was an Aye or a Nay.

Those who will not confirm are Nay's - let's be honest about it - but we can call them non-confirms if that is more accurate.

Print the list, Phil. They cannot be allowed to hide behind the cloak of anonymity in the House of Assembly.

Please, print the list!

[Joseph Froncioni on 28.05.06 at 09:44]

Well said Limey. All of our politicians should hang their heads in shame.

[Adjustah on 28.05.06 at 10:05]

"We were waiting to hear from the Government of the day," [said Opposition Whip John Barritt]. "We wanted to hear from someone on the front bench. When no one stood up that was that and the debate collapsed."

Sounds like a fucking excuse to me. Weak, bye. Weak.

[It Does Matter on 28.05.06 at 10:17]

I dont get why any politician should hang his/her head in shame because they threw out a Bill which attempted to insert into the Human Rights Act amendments designed to eradicate all forms of discrimination against homosexuals.

I would have voted the amendment down as well, on the grounds that the amendment doesn't need to be in the Human Rights Act. I think homosexuals should not get blanket anti-discrimination protection in any country.

This is the problem that so many governments run into. In their quest to be 'liberal', in their quest not to legislate morality, they take liberalism too far and end up allowing a country's morals to be undermined.

I've read so many people on this forum speak of liberalism like its a new concept. Hypocrits. How I wish you believed in these same freedoms for all aspects of governance. The people who so vehemently reject that certain groups need protection, are so quick to rally behind this kind of amendment.

We need to ask ourselves why homosexuals need euql protection in 'all' aspects of life. Nobody is given rights in a vacuum. Rights are accompanied by obligations. Every decent law is a balance between right and obligation.

Can adequate protections for homosexuals be provided in another way. By amending particular pieces of legislation.

I must say I see the point of the majority here though. I just don't see how the protection you all wish to afford is proper in the circumstance.

[tilti on 28.05.06 at 10:58]

It Does Matter,
Why exactly is the protection inproper and how would you make it different?

[silencedogood on 28.05.06 at 11:31]

Nail-Head interface achieved Limey. This is why the opposition remains pathetic and out of power. Zero leadership.

I would be far more impressed if the ones who against this bill took a stand and said so. They know opposing it is wrong which is why they shuffle their feet and quietly let it die.

It Does Matter,

Those arguments ring hollow when comming from you. You don't make them on any other thread as far as I can tell. Or did your posts from last week cease to exist?

I don't support gay marriage, but that's a very different issue from giving them basic rights to be free from discrimination, i.e. being fired for their sexuality.

Clearly this island has not learned its lessons as the oppressed become the oppressors.

[Bermudian on 28.05.06 at 11:56]

"Clearly this island has not learned its lessons as the oppressed become the oppressors."

What do you mean by that exactly? Who would you be referring to?

[Full Fullish on 28.05.06 at 12:20]

I couldn't agree more Phill. I'm personally going to take this up with Wayne Furbert and John Barritt. If the opposition really want to be in charge they have to get off their collective laurals and speak up for what they think is right. Had one of them done so, the debate wouldn't have collapsed before it even began and at least it would have been discussed. I am truly disappointed in the UBP right now over this.....

[ken on 28.05.06 at 12:23]

My opinion is that someone(s) other than Ms Webb and Mr Bascome should have spoken...and I am including both sides.
Wehther you are for or against the amendment, they should have spoken and given their reasons why or why not. As MPs, government and shadow, they should've spoken their piece.

However the excuses that they were in the bathroom or listening in another room do not cut it at all.

[ken on 28.05.06 at 12:27]

And for Mr Barritt to make the noted comment above shows that he doesn't seem to understand. Why would they be waiting for the Government's position? It was not a government bill. MPs were voting as individuals based on their own consciences.
If the UBP ever want to regain power then at the very least, they need to gain some fortitude and take a stance. They have not taken a real stand on any issues lately...usually they simply take the stand that they feel the majority of the public have, or they take the stand that opposes the government. This is why most people do not see them as an alternative to the PLP. Because they don't seem to be able to take a position.

[save d cut on 28.05.06 at 12:30]

They were all in the bathroom because they are all full of shit!

Posted by save d cut on 27.05.06 at 16:23

[stilldreaming on 28.05.06 at 12:33]

"Clearly this island has not learned its lessons as the oppressed become the oppressors."

What do you mean by that exactly? Who would you be referring to?

Posted by Bermudian on 28.05.06 at 11:56

I think he was referring to the hatred and homophobia that seems to be particularly prevalent in the black community. No community is free from homophobia and other forms of discrimination. One must temper this generalization by noting that it is a generalization, nevertheless I think for the most part it holds true, obviously not universally.

I think he hit the nail right on the head. Given the historical experience of African descendants in the western hemisphere, one would think the community would be the most sensitive to the problems and issues faced by political or racial minorities; but more often then not members of the black Bermudian community replicate the same “thinking” that was used on them not so long ago; whether it’s gay Bermudians today or Portuguese Bermudians tomorrow.

When one looks at the opposition to homosexuality, it’s extraordinary to see the similarities in both language and thinking when compared the struggle for political and societal equality that the black community had to and continues to fight for. Of course we’ll say that ‘we don’t ‘hate’ homosexuals, we just don’t think they should have a job or be able to rent an apartment. We will all note that we’re ok with gays as long as they’re not too ‘gay’, not to flamboyant and act like a nice heterosexual.

Homophobia is deplorable regardless of what community it comes from, but to see hatred coming from a community that had to struggle and bleed and die for the same respect and rights, makes me well, makes me just sad.

[It Does Matter on 28.05.06 at 13:21]

I am responding to the following comments:

Those arguments ring hollow when comming from you. You don't make them on any other thread as far as I can tell. Or did your posts from last week cease to exist?

I don't support gay marriage, but that's a very different issue from giving them basic rights to be free from discrimination, i.e. being fired for their sexuality.

[Clearly this island has not learned its lessons as the oppressed become the oppressors.](chose not to respond to this as it would change the complexion of the debate at hand).

I think I must make myself clear:

I am not for blanket human rights protections for homosexuals

When I say 'blanket' protection I mean an 'across the board' protection. Human Rights Acts are blanket protectors. They outlaw discrimination in all its manifestations as it comes to the particular category of person mentioned.

By amending the Human Rights Act, we would have been adding sexual orientation as one of the grounds upon which we could not discriminate 'across the board'. This I think is wrong.

Politicians are elected to legislate morality. Judges use their interpretation of the common law to determine what is right or wrong in society. I do not think it morally right (and some may disagree) that homosexuals be allowed to:

(1) marry
(2) adopt children
(3) change their legal sex.

This comes down to the benefit of marriage and adoption as institutions of society. This is the obligations I was speaking of earlier.

I believe that homosexuals should be protected from discrimination in the workplace, in educational endeavors, etc. But I do not agree that any protection should spread to the remit of family relationships.

Call me whatever you will; but I fear that the more protections granted, the more homosexuals we'll allow through those protections.

This is not homophobia. I do not fear contact or dealings with homosexuals. My feeling is that increasing the number of homosexuals in any society is detrimental to the society as a whole. This comes down to the tenants of human nature.

Moral actions benefit society and immoral actionscreate detriment to that society. Morality may be judged on a sliding scale. No matter how hard I try, I can't see the benefit in awarding blanket protection to homsexuals. I believe in liberalism. I believe in free choice. But liberalism is not a concept that should be used to give people rights to destroy morality.

So we shouldn't chastise homosexuals for being homosexual. We shouldn't stone them. Or imprison them. Or ridicule them. And we equally shouldn't allow them opportunity to destroy the tender balance between what is our innate human nature. Without reproduction, there is no life. But without homosexuals, life continues.

In my opinion, society's message should be:

If you choose to be a homosexual, that's on you. But when you make that choice, understand that, in the public interest, your choice will exclude you protection in the realm of reproduction and the family. But you will be protected in your workplace. You will be protected in your pursuit of education. Choose as you will.

[JSmith on 28.05.06 at 13:36]

Based on your arguements, you'll probably agree that heterosexuals should not have the rights and priveledges of marriage, if they cannot, or wish not to have children.
Those who, for whatever reason cannot reproduce, should not be allowed to marry.

I do not believe that the mixing of races is moral, it undermines society. Only people of the same race, and who will reproduce, should be allowed to marry.

If you choose to be hetersexual, that's on you. There should be legislation to ensure that those who choose the hetersexual lifestyle reproduce by a certain age, and a cuttoff age for reproducing.
No old people will be allowed to marry, or re-marry.

....and on and on.

[Phil on 28.05.06 at 13:51]

Whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry is a separate issue from whether they should be covered under the Human Rights Act.

I've given my thoughts on gay marriage before. If anyone would like to discuss that subject further, please do so on that thread.

[It Does Matter on 28.05.06 at 13:58]

Nice to see you have a 'funny' side. But I think you've missed the point.

The point is as follows:

Societies should promote reproduction take place in environments which are conducive to the children. This means having both a mother and a father figure. A hetorosexual couple who are married may have kids if they choose. A homosexual couple may not have kids through conventional means of reproduction. Mother Nature, being as intelligent as she is, has secured that the proper environment can only be cultivated through hetorosexual relationships. Homosexual couples being allowed to adopt kids will disturb the tender balance that Mother Nature created to raise children adequately. If this wasn't important, why do we think its pertinent that the father of children continue to provide support?

The above is the moralreason why we have marriage as an institution.

Older couples dont have to marry, they just desire to do so. And if they do marry, they may do so to secure possessions are kept within the family. But these problems can be sufficiently addressed by changing other laws, rather than giving blanket protections to homosexuals.

I never said that homosexuals can't be in a relationship. I dont care for what they do behind closed doors. They should not be penalized for whatever action that is, unless it harms society. And having homosexuals raise kids in their unbalanced environments is a detriment to society.

As far as the impotent man, or the woman who can't reproduce goes: they are still in the relationship which is conducive to raising a kid. Therefore adoption in that context is not improper or immoral. There's no parallel with this and homosexuality.

You dont have to agree with me. I'm not out to persuade you.

PS. As far as the intermixing of races goes, that's not up for debate and I will not be drawn into having such discussion at the moment. I'll let you know my views about that if we have a discussion on the subject.

[It Does Matter on 28.05.06 at 13:59]

And by the way, its not a separate issue. Because Human Rights opens the door to a plethora of other legal challenges based on discrimination.

[JSmith on 28.05.06 at 14:13]

"But I think you've missed the point."

I'd say the same about you, in many instances above.

"Societies should promote reproduction take place in environments which are conducive to the children. This means having both a mother and a father figure."

Then, as I said, you should agree that we limit the non-conducive environments in which children are raised. A perfect example would be the average Bermudian female, with 5 or 6 children, all by different 'daddies'...and no support.

"And having homosexuals raise kids in their unbalanced environments is a detriment to society."

...In your uneducated opinion.

"As far as the impotent man, or the woman who can't reproduce goes: they are still in the relationship which is conducive to raising a kid."

Just like any stable gay or lesbian couple.

I have the feeling you don't know gay people.

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 14:36]

I can't even begin to count the reasons that what you are saying is wrong and completely hypocritical.

The changing sex thing? Oh, my GOD! How did transgenderism get into this? This is a COMPLETELY different subject! Good lord!

As for marriage and reproduction and childrearing, if that's the way you feel, fine, but I think we should be hearing you call for an outlawing of single parent families, out of wedlock children, sterile couples getting married etc. etc. If Marriage is such a societal institution for reproduction, then let's change the law to the Zulu way and have it so people can't get married until they've had a kid. Oh, wait. What about all the legal rights married couples have, even if they're childless. Hmmm...
So, according to what you're saying, neither I, nor my father, who remarried when I was 17, but has no children with my stepmother, nor my sister, who has three kids, but none with her current husband, should be married? Or is it ok, 'cuz we're straight?

Good lord.

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 14:40]

Ooops... meant to comment on the subject.

BOTH sides should be both ashamed of themselves for pussying out on this AND proud of themselves for acting like real politicians and shifting the blame to ANYWHERE else but themselves. "Oh, I would have voted, but I was taking a shit." "I would have spoken out, but I... um... see.. uh.. there was this thing I had to do..."

Listen, politicians, if you're against something, grow some balls and say you're against it. If you're for it, come out and say so. Have some courage, have some balls and, most importantly, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB AND REPRESENT YOUR CONSTITUENTS! Stop being a pussy and actually fucking SAY something. Stop "Ohhhh... wellll.. I'd LIKE to do this, but I can't.... " Wah, wah. Do your fucking job.

[Bermudian on 28.05.06 at 14:42]

stilldreaming,

at the same time, i think it is unfair to call out blacks on the issue. they are not the only ones opposed to gay rights.

if one is to say that the oppressed have become the oppressors (with regards to blacks), i think it would be equally fair to say that the oppressors keep on oppressing (with regards to whites) because there are plenty of people in the white community that are opposed to gay rights as well.

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 14:43]

"If you choose to be a homosexual, that's on you. But when you make that choice, understand that, in the public interest, your choice will exclude you protection in the realm of reproduction and the family. But you will be protected in your workplace. You will be protected in your pursuit of education. Choose as you will."

Ah.. it all comes clear now. You still think it's a choice.

I'll bet you're glad you CHOSE to be straight.

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 14:45]

Sorry I'm posting so much...

"at the same time, i think it is unfair to call out blacks on the issue. they are not the only ones opposed to gay rights."

I agree with you 100% on this, Bermudian.
It's not cool to call out the blacks on this.
There are FAR too many people opposed to this for it to be ANY sort of racial issue.

Thank God! *grin* We finally have an issue affecting Bermuda that ISN'T going to devolve into a race thing!

[Bermudian on 28.05.06 at 15:02]

It's quite interesting (and humorous) how some are trying to parallel gay dating/marriage with interracial dating/marriage.

I can't actually see what's immoral about a man and woman of different racial backgrounds wanting to be with one another.

At the same time there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with two people of the same sex wanting to be with one another.

For some of the gay rights supporters, what are your views on incest (between consenting adults)... what makes incest so perverted and wrong and homosexuality so, well, ok?

Should incest be legal and should people who commit incest be allowed to wed?

[spoint on 28.05.06 at 15:11]

"what makes incest so perverted and wrong and homosexuality so, well, ok?"

Since you brought it up (has nothing to do with homosexuality), and you believe that it is perverted and wrong, why don't you tell us?

[spoint on 28.05.06 at 15:13]

"At the same time there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with two people of the same sex wanting to be with one another."

Seems to be? So you're really not sure...it's just your singular opinion.

Others disagree.

[Shark on 28.05.06 at 15:14]

To the topic at hand when an MP dose not even give a stance on a bill its stupid a they arnt doing what they are supoosed to. Unfortunetly its not unsual as in the UK the same thing happens were you find MP's away from a debate or a bill (in the pub or most likly sleeping and hiding from the party wips, they could be stone drunk from partying the night before even). I guess they take the view of best not to give an opion that way we cant be damed by what they say as no matter the stance they take they will recive flak from one side of the debate.
It's sad as any deabte or bill on any subject for humman rights is importent.

As to the comments on the actual rights of gays that would go off topic as this post is about the MP's not being there and not the finer points of the bill. Though i can see how that would overlap into this post.

Mayby if they made all votes secret? though im unsure weather they keep who voted on what secret. If the MP's new that the Bermuda people would not know how they voted they might vote or give an opion on it but that gose against the open goverment system that the parliment system is based on.

[Bermudian on 28.05.06 at 15:16]

spoint,

thank you for pointing out that it has nothing to do with homosexuality (i thought it was obvious but i guess for people like you i should have stated there is no direct correlation between the two)

nevertheless, the same way there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with homosexuality, there is something fundamentally wrong with incest... on the most basic level of sexuality.

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 15:21]

"I can't actually see what's immoral about a man and woman of different racial backgrounds wanting to be with one another."

I don't think that anyone can either. But there was a time where it WAS considered immoral. There's also MANY places in the world where you will be completely shunned from society if you marry out of your race. As it stands now, in Bermuda and America and Canada, in these "First World" places, families will shun people who marry another race.

"At the same time there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with two people of the same sex wanting to be with one another."

Are you speaking of your own feelings, or society's?

"For some of the gay rights supporters, what are your views on incest (between consenting adults)... what makes incest so perverted and wrong and homosexuality so, well, ok?"

You're not serious, are you? I... wow.
Is THAT how evil you thing homosexuality is? Is that the same sort of connection you make in your head?

Jesus.

[spoint on 28.05.06 at 15:22]

"people like you "

You know me? Or is that just another general sweeping statment, based on your opinions?

[Bermudian on 28.05.06 at 15:25]

spoint,

it was sweeping...

any thoughts about my question?

Elvis,

you answered my question with another question. are you actually going to provide an answer?

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 15:35]

Dude. You can't see that there's a... oh my god.

How can you liken this to fucking homosexuality?

It's similar "on the most basic level of sexuality"?

What the hell?

Sexual orientation is a preference to a specific gender. It is who you are attracted to, males or females or both. It is not even REMOTELY near the same subject as whether or not you want to fuck your sister.

On the legal rights issue, which is most of what the marriage thing is all about, siblings already HAVE legal rights, so the marriage thing is NOT the same issue as it is for gays.

So there you go. I answered your question.
Will you answer mine?

[It Does Matter on 28.05.06 at 15:46]

No, you answer mine:

Why exactly do gays need to marry, adopt kids or change their stated legal sex?

What benefit does is grant them?

What benefit does it grant society?

Is Bermudian and I wrong because we see the similarities between homosexuality and things like incest, buggery, beastiality, under age consent? What allows us to discriminate on the basis of all those things, but not homosexuality?

That's the question you need to answer. If you can't answer it, it suggest you dont have an adequate foundation for requesting homosexual rights protection.

[Bermudian on 28.05.06 at 15:47]

Dude.

I think your comments are becoming a little offensive, perhaps it is the language you are using.

It's similar because sex is generally an act performed between a male and a female who are not related. Homosexuality violates this principle and so does incest.

If you are going to provide protection for homosexuals, shouldn't you provide it for people who take part in incest?

Personally, I think that someone who wants to fuck their sister because they have a "preference" for it is disgusting. The same goes for homosexuality.

Question, so a brother and sister can marry one another?

[It Does Mattere on 28.05.06 at 15:50]

And I think you should re-read what I wrote above. I think I'm being very educated in my analysis of the subject matter. I'm not a fan of backing any proposition without an evidential basis. You want something, you prove why it is necessary. Otherwise, you leave the issue alone.

And you do not prove a things necessity by saying that its the liberal thing to do; or by saying that other countries have done it.

[Thaao Dill on 28.05.06 at 16:01]

i think the real issue that people have with homosexuality has nothing to do with biblical principles, or species preservation or fundamental morality or anything so lofty and abstract.

the main thing that separates homosexuals from heterosexuals is intercourse, who they are attracted to and are inclined to be intimate with. nothing more, nothing less.

as such, gay sex and the perception thereof is what causes all the fervor. this is essentially because most straight people think the act of homosexual sex is gross. like, really, really, horribly, insanely nasty. for us heteros, it's damn near impossibe to comprehend why someone would want to express the depth of their attraction, affection and love by asking some dude to get hip-bones deep into their booty.

this is why explaining to a kid why two men are holding hands on the sidewalk is believed to be more difficult and potentially scarring than explaining what outside children are and why uncle junior seems to have so many of them, or what papa lionel did to aunt janice that makes her seem so jittery whenever thanksgiving dinner is held at his house, or why that 14 year old is too drunk to notice how much of her cleavage is showing, of both the ass and chesticle variety.

generally speaking, straight people think gay sex is gross as hell, gasket-blowingly so. which is why there's always such a thing made of it.

we accept and even facilitate any number of society shattering activities and belief structures, ignoring the most fundamental of god's laws every single day. difference is, the act of breaking most of these basic tenets isn't on a surface or even core level particularly repulsive. adultery isn't gross, lying isn't gross, stealing isn't gross, coveting isn't gross, but, to the majority of heteros, myself included, gay sex is.

the question is, is something being gross reason enough to demonize it in such a passionate and angry manner?

i don't think so. *shrugs*. could just be me, though. if folk want to be gross, let 'em be gross. i know a girl who takes great delight in licking her index fingers after she pops her pimples. don't get me wrong, she's a wonderful friend, trustworthy, insightful, funny in an understated cleese eats with allen in a bad chinese restaurant sort of way, well read, etc. all that said, trust and believe, i will never eat at her apartment. *shudders*. however, even with that in mind, there's no reason she shouldn't be allowed to rent one.

i really believe that people should examine what their real problem with homosexuality is, without referring to anything other than gut, instinctual reaction. i bet, more than anything else, their issue is that gay sex is gross. which is not a crime or a sin or anything particularly evil. it's just gross. and that's ok. gross, but ok.

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 16:11]

Here we go...
"No, you answer mine:

Why exactly do gays need to marry, adopt kids or change their stated legal sex?"

When did the "change their stated legal sex" come up? Who's asking for this? I haven't seen this requested once. Not once. That's not part of the issue.
I'll get to the others in the questions below.

What benefit does is grant them?

What benefit does marriage grant them? Um. The legal right to have a say in their partner's life, should they need to; a sense of security; the right to live in the country of their partner... basically, the same benefits as straight people. Do they deserve less because they love the "wrong" person?
Adoption? It gives them a child. It gives then an additional... you know what? It gives them the same benefits as a straight couple.

What benefit does it grant society?

Again. The exact same benefit as straights. Stable relationships. UNstable relationships.
What's the great benefit to society of some guy marrying a foreigner just to get her right to abode?

Is Bermudian and I wrong because we see the similarities between homosexuality and things like incest, buggery, beastiality, under age consent?

YES! He IS wrong! Those things are sexual ACTS homosexuality is a sexual ORIENTATION. Don't you get it? There IS a difference!
As for buggery... straight people can commit buggery, too!

What allows us to discriminate on the basis of all those things, but not homosexuality?

See above.

That's the question you need to answer.

Just did.

If you can't answer it, it suggest you dont have an adequate foundation for requesting homosexual rights protection

Actually, I am a citizen of this country. That's all the foundation I need, thank you.

Dude.

I think your comments are becoming a little offensive, perhaps it is the language you are using.

You don't like swearing? Get over it.
Saying fuck is nowhere NEAR as offensive as some of the stuff you guys are bringing up, some of the parallells you're making.

It's similar because sex is generally an act performed between a male and a female who are not related. Homosexuality violates this principle and so does incest.

Oh. My. God.
Again, you are likening the ACT to the ORIENTATION.

This is ridiculous and offensive and wrong. It sickens me that you see this this way.

You're completely wrong about that. In YOUR world this may be true, but history and biology prove you wrong. The ancient Greeks used to say "Women are for procreating, men are for fun." Bonobo's are notorious for their bisexuality, as are wolves. You are putting YOUR baggage on this issue and trying to make it sound like logic.

If you are going to provide protection for homosexuals, shouldn't you provide it for people who take part in incest?

NO! BECAUSE INCEST IS NOT A SEXUAL ORIENTATION!

Personally, I think that someone who wants to fuck their sister because they have a "preference" for it is disgusting.

Of course it is.

The same goes for homosexuality.

That's YOUR hangup. Let me try to put it another way.
Homosexuals are people that are attracted to those of the same sex as themselves.
"Your sister" is not a gender. There is no "your sister" type. There is only one person. That's not an orientation.
There are only three orientations. Gay, Straight and Bi. It's not: Attracted to men, attracted to women, attracted to both and attracted to my sister.
There IS a difference. It's NOT the same thing.

Question, so a brother and sister can marry one another?

What the fuck? Are you insane?

Good lord. You guys really hate gays, don't you?
You really think it's ok to hate them.

You sicken me.

[silencedogood on 28.05.06 at 16:12]

Bermudian I was generalizing as still dreaming summed up, but I think I'm giving equal grief to all involved on the issue, white black or other.

For clarity's sake no one comes out clean on this issue. No one has learned the lessons of the past and yet again the wrong decision was made.

It Does Matter,

As it turns out we agree on some of these issues but I think its incorrect to say the human rights legislation would have opened the door to all the things you fear.

It would have been nice to have seen this debate on the floor so that basic protections could be provided. The marriage debate could wait for another day.

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 16:16]

Thaao,

So you've never performed anal sex or fantasized about it? With a woman.
You've never received a blowjob?

Yeah. It's real disgusting.

[Thaao Dill on 28.05.06 at 16:16]

as an aside, a basic difference between incest and homosexual sex is the contextual separations between the two.

incest largely is not a consensual act, the water is muddy as hell in those sorts of relationships. if your older sister starts feeling your christian parts at the beach, in the shallows during the labour day celebration, the guilt and confusion is inclined to propel you into participating in all sorts of mess you really don't want to.

this is light years away from two gay adults dating for a while and deciding to be in a relationship and ending up in bed.

beyond that, as i'm sure you're aware, the offspring of incestuous relationships are far more likely to suffer from serious birth defects.

those are only two huge reasons why although incest and homosexual sex are possibly equally gross, incest comes out on top in exploitative, negative behaviour.

and yes, of course, there are homosexual pedophiles. but they are the minority, obviously. just as obviously, the majority of people who choose to begin incestuous relationships are pedophiles

step further again. pedophilia is gross, as is homosexual sex. difference is again the lack of consent and intentions underscoring pedophilia.

sorry to ramble. just bugs me when people dance around the point.

deuces.

[JSmith on 28.05.06 at 16:27]

The bottom line is, you don't like gays because you think gay sex is icky. Grow up. I've seen some of "your type", and just the though of you having sex , or even naked, is disgusting enough...but I don't worry about it all day long like you do...I leave you people to do your gross things and I get on with my life. You should try it sometime.

[Thaao Dill on 28.05.06 at 16:28]

uncle e - dude, i'm on your side.

i don't think homosexuality or homosexuals are wrong or evil or should be demonized on any level. seriously.

i just think sex with two dicks and no cooch is gross. that's it.

for me, it's sort of like those little pots of mayo that you get at a diner, with the plastic spork stuck into it twitching in the wind. that shit makes me sick, can't eat without pushing the jawn to the edge of the table and wrapping the winelist around around it. that's basically my attitude towards gay sex, NOT gay people. don't want to see 'em getting busy, but otherwise it's all good. i'll stand as godfather for a gay dude's kid, give a lesbian wickedly effective cpr, but, i just don't want to see two dude's banging. grosses me out.

accordingly, i can understand completely why gay people think sex without two dicks would be nasty as hell as well. that's their perspective, and they're completely welcome to it.

but again, i don't think that gross activity is really all that big of a deal, in the grand scheme of things. being nasty is not a sin, or rather, being PERCEIVED as nasty is not a sin, or a crime or anything worth persecution. which is my point. so heteros think homosexual sex is nasty. big whoop. doesn't mean they should be forced to stop, or prevented from gaining scholarships or drowned en masse. just means a large segment of the population thinks it's icky. and that's ok, both the action and the perception of the action.

dig? hope so.

deuces.

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 16:33]

I dig you, Thaao, but I don't think that's a decent argument against it.

Trust me, the thought of sex with Roseanne Barr or Starr Jones is vile to me, but no one's using that as an argument for discrimination against fat people.

[Bermudian on 28.05.06 at 16:39]

btw Elvis,

engaging in disrespectful discussion isn't good for me and I'm assuming you would prefer not to as well...

so I'll just agree to disagree. saves us both some time.

[Thaao Dill on 28.05.06 at 16:39]

uncle e - that's my point, the grossness is NOT a valid argument, even though it's the main reason that people have a problem with homosexuals.

what i'm saying is folk should examine their real issue with homosexuality, and if it turns out to be largely concerned with how nasty gay sex is, then, they should shut up and move on to the next group to harass with closed-minded intolerance.

i vote zoologists. who the hell do they think they are, worrying about animal welfare and history when so many Bermudian children have type 2 diabetes and have no idea where their cultural roots are based? monkey loving bastards.

;)

[tilti on 28.05.06 at 17:30]

Bermudian,
I agree with Elvis. You are not listening to his points and preferences and orientation are not interchangeable. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

[Shark on 28.05.06 at 18:39]

The thread really as degenrated into something that though related is not what the post is about.

All this can be summed up in one sentece...emotions destroy socity norms. As hummans we are ruled by our emotions which dicate our actions more then reasoning.

Incest is imoral its true and happens either though lust or the nartural afection an brother, sister, mother, farther have for each other has become so confused that incest happens. Basikly emotins screw up society.

To homosexuality it can also me dictated by emotions in that a man may find he has strong felings for another man vic versa for women. For me comenting on this is diffcult as thugh i have libral veiws on areas I strong disagree with others but has a cristion Jesus said to be magnaumus and to love thy neighbour.

Gay people do have the right to a good job, a home, and the other rights hetrosexuial people have. As to a gay couple raising a child i have not yet made up my mind on the subject so wont comment.

So to end eomtion screw up society.

Also Elvis Bermudian may think he is right that people being gay dosent fly in Bermuda as well as other libral sexual orientaion and acts as Bermuda is sill a very religious country with churnces every few miles all over the island. I think i rember sandys has like 7 churces. Im giving no validity to his agument here just showing why he thinks this way.

[J Starling on 28.05.06 at 19:08]

First off I feel that this episode proves my earlier argument that the 'new UBP' is not new whatsoever but is politicking the politicics of political expediency and nothing else.

Secondly, this whole debacle, that is the way the vote went down, shows that the vast majority of our parliamentarians lack the courage to adequately debate such obviously emotional issues. I'm pretty sure that the result would've been the same, but I would have expected a greater debate on the issue.

Thirdly, this debacle only further shows the inadequacies of our current political system. The issue of democratic reform has been discussed before, and this just shows the need for it again. That being said, I feel that the vote would've been the same. That doesn't make it right, but thats what I see to be the reality.

Fourthly, this shows that the Rainbow Alliance, the social liberals (if I may call them that and include myself in that term) need to present their arguments as patiently, rationally and as often as possible. There is a lot of ignorance out there, a lot of fear and a few bigots out there. You can't do much for bigots, but one can isolate them through patient and rational arguments over time. Uncle Elvis, as with all things we disagree and agree on some things. I agree with you and your passion here, but it doesn't help other than releasing some of your own steam. Other than that its counter-productive.

This episode also shows the need to further strengthening the basis of secularism in our country. I and a few others started the Society for a Secular Bermuda last year but have been neglecting it for some time now. The society itself doesn't take a position on the particular issue of homosexuality, but it does take issue with churches mucking around with politics. There was a time when the churches served as progressive forces in politics, that time is gone, and just as churches have no role in the biology class, so do they have no role in parliament. The two have non-overlapping magisteria to borrow a term from Gould concerning science and religion.

[Uncle Elvis on 28.05.06 at 19:11]

Shark, I completely understand where Bermudian is coming from. I'm just trying to explain that being gay is NOT a sexual act, nor is it liberal. It is simply a matter of who you are attracted to. It is dictated by the same emotions as being straight.