Cayman is discriminating against local gays, says lawyer

| 02/10/2017 | 257 Comments
Cayman News Service

Dr Leonardo Raznovich

(CNS): Dr Leonardo Raznovich, who has been campaigning for the rights of the LGBT community in the Cayman Islands after he and his husband won a case against the immigration department, has pointed to a case of discrimination by the department against local people after a Caymanian’s application for their gay spouse to reside in Cayman was turned down. The couple, who wish to remain anonymous, have appealed the refusal.

Speaking at a the International Bar Association’s annual conference last week, Raznovich said immigration officials had cited his case to the local couple as applying only to foreign nationals.

A former law school professor from Argentina who is married to a British lawyer on a work permit, Raznovich and his husband won their appeal against the immigration department’s denial for him to be a dependent on his spouse’s work permit after he lost his job at the law school.

As the immigration law does not mention the gender of married couples and because the men were legally married in their respective native countries, the immigration department’s decision to refuse Raznovich as a dependent was overturned.

Since then, a number of expatriate gay couples have been able to add their same-sex partners to their permits but it appears that gay couples where one is Caymanian and the other is not are encountering significant problems legalising the status of their spouses.

Raznovich said, “The practical effect of this rejection is that the immigration authority is forcing Cayman people out of their homeland in order to live with the person they love. In effect, the immigration authority is deporting Caymanians instead of foreigners to live overseas where they can live as a family.”

Speaking at the conference in Australia, Raznovich highlighted the case to the audience of legal experts and pointed to the irony that has arisen in Cayman after he and his husband became the first gay couple here to challenge a decision of the immigration department relating to same-sex marriages. But Raznovich said this local case is not just blatant discrimination, it is also illegal.

“The Cayman Islands Constitution, in Section 16, states that the government shall not treat any person in a discriminatory manner,” he told the conference. “Section 24 makes it unlawful for public officials to act contrary to the Bill of Rights, unless required to do so by primary legislation.”

He continued, “In this new case, the matter is even more disturbing, and illegal, because the law is no longer open to interpretation by the immigration authority. The Immigration Appeals Tribunal, in July last year, clarified how the law as it currently stands in the Cayman Islands must be interpreted and stated that the law compels recognition of the validity of overseas same-sex marriages for immigration purposes, without making any distinction between nationals and ex-pats.”

Given that a number of expat couples are now enjoying legal dependent rights in the wake of Raznovich and his husband’s case, he said it “was abhorrent that the immigration authority has decided to discriminate against its own people by denying Caymanians a right that they are, in law, entitled to”.

Raznovich said this confirmed that issues regarding LGBT partners are not ex-pat issues but a matter of homophobia and discrimination. He urged the Cayman government to stop “seeking to contort the law” in an effort to “be consistent with the norms of the predominant Christian faith”.  He added that faith is incredibly important to many and must be respected but the Cayman Islands is not a theocracy.

“Faith must not trump the actual laws of these Islands …irrespective of the majority position,” he said.  “All people can, and must, be treated equally under the law and must be able to enjoy protection from discrimination on any of the grounds prohibited by the Constitution: sexual orientation, like it or not, is legally one of those grounds.”

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Category: Local News

Comments (257)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Maybe I am wrong in saying this but I aticipate that the majority of person on here bashing samesex couples marriage probably don’t have family members who are struggling with the issue daily on this Island or if they do then maybe that family has been cast aside by family. As a Caymanian it hurts so much to see my gay family member only wanting to have what we have. The right to love and not be judged by who you love. My sister and her partner of 15 years are two of the most loving and caring persons I know and in a few weeks my Caymanian sister will leave her family behind because her happiness will have to take place in another country.

    I really hope people could just love and let love. Love is Love




    6



    1
  2. Anonymous says:

    It is a simple question folks – why is everyone trying to be Socrates in the comments.

    “How should Cayman handle the case of the “Colombian 3″ when one of the partners applies for a work permit?”

    We are going on 3 days now and not a single direct reply.

    The reason is clear – one cannot give an answer without;

    a.) falling into the modern pitfalls of “bigotry” and “discrimination” or

    b.) acknowledging our recent and proposed changes will result in a reality of infinite modification.

    This is all I am saying.

    Personally, I don’t give a hot damn about who wants to marry who – I simply want us to be clear what we’re getting ourselves into.

    Lastly, the hypocrisy and bigotry on display by many in this thread is disappointing.

    It is clear that a sizeable portion of the “equal marriage” (limited to 2 people apparently) campaigners are primarily anti-Bible / Christian-hating individuals – until the issue of immigration and Islam in their country comes to the table of course, but I digress.

    I trust that unlike Diogenes, who erroneously centered his entire initial rebuttal thereon, the room has noted I have not referenced a single scripture or commandment in my exchanges.

    In fact, it is my opinion the western version of this debate is further complicated by Christianity and religious stances.

    However, when we travel East to countries like Japan (a largely athiest country), for example, the opposition to gay marriage is just as strong, if not moreso, yet you won’t witness a single reference to the Bible or Jesus in the process.

    Their resistance is largely based on the inherently perceived absurdity of the concept.

    As my thick-accented, sushi-chef friend “T” ended our group discussion on the matter recently when asked how and why his people regard gay marriage the way they do;

    T: “Becaause … is’ Japan ruules”.

    I almost died with laughter and had to assure him I was not laughing at him or his people.
    Instead, the stark, simple and sincere contrast to the western debate was so eye-opening.

    – Who




    1



    4
    • Anonymous says:

      Who,

      Your question was: “How should Cayman handle the case of the “Colombian 3″ when one of the partners applies for a work permit?”

      Your question was directly answered on 04/10/2017 at 3:46 pm: “In the same way we handle polygamous marriages performed in African and Muslim majority countries for immigration purposes.”

      But what you repeatedly seem to misunderstand is that polygamous marriage is entirely irrelevant to the issue in this case.

      The issue in this case is “for what reason should the laws in Cayman treat (1) same-sex couples who are expats and got married abroad differently than (2) same-sex couples who are Caymanians and got married abroad?”

      YOU are the one who continues to dodge the question.

      Instead, you ask an unrelated question about polygamy, suggesting that recognizing a Caymanian same-sex couple would somehow require Cayman to recognize polygamous marriages. That is a logical fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

      In the same way that recognition of straight marriages under Cayman law does not require us to recognize polygamous marriages, neither does recognition of gay marriages under Cayman law require us to recognize polygamous marriages.

      And here’s why:

      ***

      The test for whether legal discrimination exists is generally (1) whether there is a fundamental right at issue, (2) whether that fundamental right is afforded to some people but not others under the law, and (3) whether the denial of that right to some is made on the basis of an immutable characteristic.

      With respect to same-sex marriage:

      The right to a private and family life is guaranteed by the Caymanian constitution. The right to form a family by marrying a single other person is recognized under Caymanian law. Accordingly, there is a fundamental right at issue. Prong (1) of the test has been met.

      The law in Cayman allows opposite-sex couples to exercise their right to marry a single other person, but does not allow same-sex couples to exercise their right to marry a single other person. Accordingly, a fundamental right has been afforded to some people, but not others. Prong (2) of the test has been met.

      The law in Cayman denies that right to same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual-orientation. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. Accordingly, the denial of the right is made on the basis of an immutable characteristic. Prong (3) of the test has been met.

      Accordingly, there is legal discrimination.

      With respect to polygamous marriage:

      The right to a private and family life is guaranteed by the Caymanian constitution. Cayman has not, to my knowledge, recognized under its laws the right to form a family by marrying more than one person. Accordingly, it is unclear whether there is a fundamental right at issue, so it is unclear whether prong (1) of the test has been met.

      But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the right at issue is the right to marry generally, and not the right to marry a single other person. Let’s assume on that basis that prong (1) has been met. And then, let’s go further, and assume that the law in Cayman therefore affords the right to marry to monogamous couples but not polyamorous ones, and therefore that prong (2) of the test has also been met.

      And yet, that is not the end of the analysis. We must still then ask about prong (3). So is the right to marry denied to polyamorous couples on the basis of an immutable characteristic? Is the desire for polyamory an inherent trait that is fundamental to one’s being? Or can people make a choice as to whether or not they desire to marry more than one person? Not being polyamorous myself, I honestly don’t have the information to know the answer to that question, so, at best, it is unclear whether prong (3) of the test has not been met.

      **

      So, as you can clearly see, the analysis and the questions at issue between (a) same-sex marriage and (b) polygamous marriage are rather different. And if the analysis is different, and the conclusions are potentially different, then we can make different decisions in our laws with respect to those two different things.

      It is simply not the case that same sex marriage means we must recognize polygamous marriages, or vice versa. That is the logical fallacy on which you continue to rely.

      And if you disagree with the foregoing logic, ARTICULATE WHAT THE FLAW IS in the reasoning and let’s have a conversation about that. Don’t just say no one has addressed your question. We have, repeatedly.

      Now address ours:

      For what reason should the laws in Cayman treat (1) same-sex couples who are expats and got married abroad differently than (2) same-sex couples who are Caymanians and got married abroad?




      7



      0
    • Diogenes says:

      My debates are centered on the Cayman Islands because it is my home and it is where I have the most experiences in life and yes here the majority opinion on Gay rights is it is wrong because “Jesus …..” Bible…. ” “God ……” so yes focusing my debate on the contradictory religious allowances on the islands is quite sensible, you simply dislike focusing on the religious aspect because there is irrefutable evidence that you cannot justify, Japan has always been a very conservative traditional country, let’s not act surprised that some are against it for traditional reasons, but as usual you pick and choose what information to share and as usual what you share favors your side not the objective truth, Japan’s public opinions on the matter have evolved to the changing world just like their economy and way of life, the population is split on the issue and therefore nothing has been done on the state level but individual cities have already began allowing unions and registrations for same sex couples. As usual you are misinformed and hate filled, with your points too busy trying to call specific persons out instead of looking at the issues, you and Unison need to get in a boat and promptly sink to the bottom of the the Cayman Trough

      Good day sir
      Diogenes




      1



      1
  3. Langston says:

    Why not give caymanians rights in their own country, then let’s look at LGBT group. I thing young man you are putting the cart before the wheel.




    0



    0
    • Anonymous says:

      What part of the press release are you failing to understand Langston? Raznovich is asking for “caymanian rights’, perhaps you need to read this again …




      1



      0
    • Anonymous says:

      This case deals precisely with the rights of Caymanians.




      2



      0
  4. Anonymous says:

    From one heterosexual male Caymanian; I’ve got nothing against gay marriage. To each, his/her own. The Marriage Law should treat straight and gay marriages equally.

    CNS: The rest of this comment has been posted here: Talking of discrimination…




    2



    1
  5. Anonymous says:

    Rights rights rights is all we hear from the lgbt community, what abouts the ‘rights’ of democracy that choose through elected government to define a marriage as that between a man and a woman. You compare yourselves to slaves and their fight for freedom, give me a break please!!! No one is stopping you from loving or partnering with the same sex, but you campaign for more and more, yet you stop short of campaigning in places like Saudi Arabia and the like. We have seen campaigns to teach ‘alternative lifestyles’ in school, changes to childrens books to include lgbt, where do we stop? I say seek your ‘rights’ in countries that already allow what you want.




    12



    14
  6. Anonymous says:

    All of this controversy over some god no one can prove exist. Lame.




    8



    13
  7. Anonymous says:

    In light of all that has been said in the 200+ comments in this thread and within the purported tenets of marriage equality, I have one final question for the room.

    How should we treat the spousal situation when one of the partners in the Colombian 3-way gay marriage applies for a work permit?

    (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-40655103)

    This is not a hypothetical folks – this is where we’re at.
    Let us stop the convenient intellectual dishonesty. (You know who you are.)

    Beware of those “bigotry” and “discrimination” pitfalls as you forward your responses.
    After all, you wouldn’t want to sound like those hateful neanderthals you so despise, right?

    I look forward to the replies.

    – Whodatis

    * “Prof Aviram said she found little appetite for marriage among polyamorous groups when she first started her research in 2004 but she began to see a change around 2012.

    A study by the US-based organisation Loving More the same year found that 65.9% of more than 4,000 polyamorous people said would want to marry multiple people if such marriages were legal.

    Prof Aviram believes changing attitudes may be due to wider acceptance of same-sex marriage around the world, making way for new taboos to be broken.

    “Perhaps in the 1970s, same-sex marriage was as unimaginable as group marriage is today,” she says.”

    ** Equal marriage, indeed.

    *** The main problem here is, many gays regard themselves and their issues as the final frontier of societal injustice. Sorry folks, but history will prove this was just the beginning and your novelty will be washed out in the floodgates of the change for which you so feverishly fought.

    Interestingly, even in this thread, we now see the attempts of some in your group to pull up the drawbridge behind you, but no – that is not how change works my friends.




    8



    6
    • Anonymous says:

      Troll.




      5



      0
    • Anonymous says:

      He is a little obsessed with Colombian three ways, isn’t he? It is classic straw man stuff, but Whodatis lacks the intellectual rigour to see that.




      5



      2
    • Anonymous says:

      For the 200th time, Whodat, polygamy is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT issue.

      The reasons for or against, and the state’s interests in, polygamous relationships are entirely different from whether monogamous same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

      After all, the recognition of straight marriages didn’t open the door to polygamy. And in the 58 (predominantly African and Muslim-majority) countries that currently recognize polygamy, legal recognition of polygamous relationships has preceded recognition of same-sex relationships, and yet you didn’t see the flood gates open to gay marriage in those countries, did you?

      This argument is utter nonsense, and is little more than fear-mongering to serve your agenda.

      And, for the record, this particular issue ISN’T EVEN ABOUT whether same-sex marriage should be recognized in Cayman. For immigration purposes, it already is, but only for expats and not for Caymanians.

      So I ask you, Whodat — what legitimate reason is there for Cayman to give legal recognition to the same-sex marriages of expats, but not Caymanians?

      Stop changing the subject and answer the only question on the table.




      3



      3
      • Anonymous says:

        Said so much yet failed to answer the question.

        Let me help you out there bub…

        That discomfort and hesitation that clearly overwhelms you (and the majority of the room evidently) in relation to the cited 3-gay-marriage scenario is the identical feeling and reaction that many have toward standard gay marriage.

        (Yet you folks would be the first to scream in support for “marriage equality”. I guess that applies up until the point it includes groups other than yours.)

        Welcome to bigotry, hypocrites.

        You all are no better than the “bible-thumpers” you so despise and berate on every occasion this matter rears its controversial head.

        – Whodatis




        0



        0
        • Anonymous says:

          So I ask you, Whodat — what legitimate reason is there for Cayman to give legal recognition to the same-sex marriages of expats, but not Caymanians?




          0



          0
        • Anonymous says:

          As repeatedly said, polygamy and same sex marriage are distinguishable on the basis that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. The desire to marry more than one person is not. You discriminate under the law when you treat similarly situated people differently based on an immutable characteristic. HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE DISCRIMINATION IS IRRELEVANT.




          0



          1
    • Anonymous says:

      How thick can you be mate? Comparing same-sex marriage with polygamy is not possible because they are completely different institutions. Same-sex marriage is comparable to different-sex marriage because both are the union of the two people with the exclusion of all others and discrimination occurs when one can happen and the other is prohibited without any valid reason other than you do not like it. Polygamy and polyandry are the union of one men and multiple wives (the former) and one woman and multiple husbands (the latter). Whether a society wants to accept multiple legal partners marrying each other or not has nothing to do with marriage being open to all couples regardless of the genders or race of the parties. You may recall than in the USA it was a criminal offence for a white and black to marry. The repeal of the prohibition on grounds of discrimination did not lead to polygamy or polyandry so, how on earth can you suggest that opening marriage to same sex couples will lead to it? Only a sick or brainless person can suggest such stupid thing.




      6



      0
      • Anonymous says:

        My friend, one could easily repackage your words and utilise to dismiss the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

        Interesting how you (and others) fail to realise your interpretation of the issue is subject to and limited by your personal tolerances.

        “Different institutions” you say? Yes indeedy.

        – Who




        0



        2
        • Anonymous says:

          Well, if you don’t want to reason, then you will never see the difference where there is one; I wonder whether your limitations are the effect of the way you have been brought up or whether you were born with these limitations…




          2



          1
        • Anonymous says:

          If it can be done, then do it.

          But try and you will fail, Who, because the argument is not logically consistent.

          So either you are too lazy to try, or you don’t try because know you will fail.

          In either case, that makes you not worthy of sharing an opinion.




          0



          0
  8. Diogenes says:

    Must have been great to have discussions back in the day when people were presented with facts and instead of doubling down on their beliefs they actually considered the validity and made an informed decision, say what you want, this issue of gay rights is very similar to the struggles for rights of the descendants of slaves and the civil rights movement. We want equality, it’s not a big conspiracy, there is no great big plot to overthrow the straights, we want to get married to the people we love like any other human being we want equal rights, if you can’t accept that you are part of the problem, you don’t have to like it or agree with it but you also cannot preach down to us as you oppress us. We will win and history will show our struggle like slavery and like the civil rights movements you will be ridiculed and shamed, don’t forget it, Change is coming fast Cayman, its a brave new world.




    13



    9
    • Anonymous says:

      Black people were, and still are in many instances, regarded as sub-human or inferior by the majority of White people. Hence the legally-enforced and democratic opposition to interracial marriage.

      Alongside those restrictions came segregated bathrooms, public transport, public services, military bases / vessels, and hospital waiting rooms. Lynching, rape and grave miscarriages of justice were also a common occurrence on behalf of the state against Blacks.

      To draw a comparison to or correlation with gay marriage is a great insult.

      However, you have demonstrated on more than one occasion your selective campaign for justice and callously inject certain references only to support your selfish argument.

      As for your predictions, let us know how it feels to be stopped, searched, regularly harassed and disproportionally arrested or shot by the police just for being gay (or in a gay marriage) – 50 years from now.

      – Whodatis

      * Fight whatever fight you choose, but while doing so, please stay in your lane. This attempt of yours to “stick it” to other perceived victims of injustice along the way is very unfortunate and not a good look.
      In fact, some may regard such action as the pinnacle of racism or discrimination.

      You should be ashamed of yourself.




      8



      6
      • Diogenes says:

        I have heard countless stories of how caymanians reacted when gay cruises came here, don’t fool yourself it is not as prevalent as segregation against blacks in the US (ironic you are explaining how segregation works to me a black caymanian male with a keen interest and a great affinity for history 😀 thanks for the history lesson though you are just proving my point), I never said that the LGBT struggle for rights and the anti-slavery movement and desegregation of the US along with the civil rights movement are exactly the same situation I said they are very similar because just like then today a group of people are being restricted due to something they cannot control, they are treated differently and the law treats them basically as separate types of people, that is all I’m sorry that hurts your feelings fundamental but that is an indisputable fact. The context of the situation is very similar whether you like it or not you cannot argue against it
        Never once have I said that Blacks back in the day and the LGBT community are equally discriminated against i drew parallels between the struggles which are perfectly accurate.

        Black people: Treated differently for a immutable trait, not provided equal rights and protections under the law, treated as second class citizens (state sponsored/endorsed discrimination (In the form of Jim Crow laws, and the Separate but equal doctrine and policy)

        LGBT Community: Treated differently for an immutable trait, Not provided equal rights and protections under the law, State-sponsored/endorsed discrimination ( in the form of the restrictions placed on the status of our relationships in the eyes of the law)

        Should we forget the fact that multiple MLA’s have ran on hate platforms, do you need quotes or are you going to sweep that under the rug, the fact that it is socially acceptable,doesn’t mean it is ok, if this was the UK certain MLA’s could be in a precarious position for their hate speech.
        When have gay people ever been bullied or assaulted for their beliefs right? Are we going to pretend that they are not victimized in jurisdictions around the world daily? Are you honestly going to say that you have never seen anyone treated differently in Cayman because of their orientation and that people on Cayman haven’t been cast out and ostracized for their sexual orientations? If i had a dollar for every time someone told me to leave my home country because of my orientation I would have enough to buy back all of Cayman’s land from Dart , maybe lying to yourself is how you sleep at night but I grew up here too and I have experienced these things firsthand,

        I have never once mentioned the plague of blacks being murdered by police in any of my arguments because the police aren’t the issue here and they are completely separate conversations. The fact that you think our fight isn’t valid just because we don’t follow a step by step play-through of blacks in the US is quite hilarious for someone who tries to act smart with your cute little sub arguments under your comments you really like ignoring evidence right in front of you.

        I’d really love to hear this selective campaign for justice, because I don’t get how allowing everyone to have the same rights as everyone else is selective (that is the very definition of all inclusive)

        “Stay in your lane” that’s seems very similar to what was said to women when they fought for suffrage, the fact that you think that me as a full-Caymanian don’t have the right to speak up in my own country is a display of who you really are underneath the bullshit you don’t give a damn about other humans you talk about me wanting to “stick it to” perceived victims of injustice, whatever that means

        I am not ashamed of defending my beliefs and you can say what you like, one day you and your kind will die off or be relegated to the insignificant footnotes of history where you belong, almost every major movement for rights in the western world in the last 150 years was eventually validated, how long do you think these islands can hold out, We depend on the rest of the world to do business with us but they don’t depend on us, there are other offshore jurisdictions that are eager for us to mess up so that they can stake their claim to our hegemony. You can take a step back into the past or push forward into the new age either way you prove my points




        7



        5
        • Anonymous says:

          Re: “…one day you and your kind will die off.”

          Oh dear. Do I dare …?!
          (Nah, too easy. We gonna spare him Tru-Tru.)

          This exchange has gone on long enough. We have both had our say and can walk away having gained some degree of mutual understanding from the chaos.

          I wish you well Diogenes.

          Sincerely,

          – Who




          0



          2
          • Diogenes says:

            I meant hated filled bigots, not straight people ( I guess that could use some clarification) Don’t act like I meant straight people, the loss of the reproductive capabilities of our species serves no one




            0



            0
      • Anonymous says:

        The situations are different, yes, just like the movement for women’s equality was different than the movement for racial equality. But do you see how there are also similarities?

        No one is equating the two movements. But when you try to say that discrimination against one community permissible, but discrimination against another community is not, because the second community—in your view—”had it worse”, you are the one who discriminates.

        Discrimination in any form against any people for any immutable characteristic should simply not be tolerated in civilized society.




        3



        0
      • Anonymous says:

        Same sex should never happened, i blame UK, in fact they are blamed for most things. same sex couples, should be classified as a contract or union between two same sex couples, but never, never marriage.




        2



        2
        • Anonymous says:

          What you argue for is constitutionally impermissible legal discrimination under the Cayman constitution.




          1



          2
      • Anonymous says:

        How is that a great insult? Gay people are regarded as sick or mentally ill by many idiots in the Cayman islands and the prohibition of same sex marriage is comparable to the prohibition of interracial marriage in that both proven access to the benefits of the institution on grounds of race and sexual origination which are immutable trait of the person. In other words, a white cannot become black in the same way that a gay cannot become straight in order to marry someone. As for gay being arrested, let me remind you that gay people are murder in many parts of the world for being gay or just being perceived a such, perhaps you do not read the news in Jamaica, which is next door to the Cayman Islands. I suggest that you inform and educate yourself before you dare to make comments such as the one you made above.




        4



        1
  9. Hard truth says:

    The bible says you should worship on Sabbath = Saturday but Sunday is the preferred day of worship in Cayman, it says you should eat clean foods not unclean which includes Cayman favourite, Conch, Turtle, shrimp etc, it says it’s a sin to divorce your spouse (unless they commit adultery), it has a list of commandments that Cayman constantly breaks but yet the one that gets everyone upset is homosexuality… Call sin by it’s rightful name if you’d like but don’t exclude the ones you are guilty of. Get upset about your own sin!




    8



    3
  10. Anonymous says:

    keep in mind that at bottom we’re talking about a human right to anal sex. 😉

    CNS: Sex between two men has been legal since 2000. This is not about sex, it’s about same-sex relationships having the same legal rights as heterosexual ones. Try to keep up.




    18



    9
  11. Anonymous says:

    Straight people sin and Gay people sin.
    God is real. The world needs Jesus. The world wants God out of their lives. The world hates God. Their is a reason why God put laws on earth.

    We have broken all of His laws. No one is good not one. We have all fallen short. We are all sinners and we deserve to be punished.

    Man with man nor woman with woman cannot bring a child into this
    world.

    We all need to repent and trust in Jesus.

    Muhammed cannot save us. Buhdahh cannot save us and you cannot save yourself.

    Only Jesus Christ saves.




    16



    25
    • Unison says:

      Unless you have a belief in Jesus Christ, what he stood for, you can not be saved! You will be lost for rejecting Gd’s beloved son.

      Why?

      Because Jesus said, “I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life…” No man can come to the Creator Gd except through Jesus!

      However, we must part our ways when you say “Jesus saves.” What do you mean? Jesus in his own power can not save us! Jesus had to rely TOTALLY on the Father for his salvation and resurrection from the dead. When we say “Jesus saves” we mean he saves us by his teaching, his message. Thats why he called himself THE TRUTH, THE WAY.

      Shalom ☺




      7



      16
      • Unison says:

        Thats how I see it 👍




        4



        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Jesus saves – but Raznovich scores on the rebound!!




        11



        7
      • Anonymous says:

        Jesus never said anything about same sex marriage.




        6



        3
        • Unison says:

          You are correct. In Matthew 19, Jesus described true marriage, as between one man and one woman ☝️




          10



          1
          • Diogenes says:

            @Unison *casually leaves out the rest of the bible because that is too much work*




            2



            3
          • Anonymous says:

            Jesus couldn’t even save himself, so what makes you think he can save you?




            4



            5
            • Unison says:

              If person should die and go to heaven, and it was through the teachings of Jesus (by his life and example), would it be wrong for that person to say “Jesus saved me”?

              Of course, Gd saved you! But “through” one of His sons, His beloved son.




              2



              4
          • Anonymous says:

            Unison, now who is relying on a logical fallacy?

            You claim that because Jesus, in response to a question about opposite sex marriage—”Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”—discusses the origins of opposite-sex marriage in response, he is condemning same-sex marriage?

            So if I ask you whether you like apple pie, and you say “apple pie is made from apples”, that means you condemn all other pies?




            1



            2
  12. Anonymous says:

    OK. I go into Burger King without a shirt and no shoes on. The sign says, ” I need to wear a shirt and have shoes on.”Are they discriminating against shirtless people?




    15



    11
    • Anonymous says:

      Covering yourself appropriately and respecting the love of people are two entirely different subjects.




      14



      6
    • Anonymous says:

      Shirtlessness is not an immutable characteristic of one’s being. Sexual orientation is.




      10



      4
    • Anonymous says:

      Back to your cave. Quick, before anyone sees you.




      18



      5
    • REESHE says:

      No but the fact the burger king offers a drive thru for those who would not like to dress up to get a burger does that mean that we can get the same privileges with our life. It’s a choice to go inside or go by the window even without a car but this about discrimination about who people love is ridiculous because it’s the same people who like to say God teaches us to love all our Neighbors are the same one turning there back on people. As far as I know the bible says Only God can lay judgement on a man’s sins but yet here we are again with people who feel they are better then God so they feel free to judge is and are using this excuse of this being a Christian community excuse to do it.




      5



      2
  13. Anonymous says:

    This is not discrimination. They can work, live, shop, have insurance, buy, sell, have sex, have friends. No one in Cayman is throwing Gays off roof tops.




    20



    13
    • Anonymous says:

      Why do you believe that violence the only form of discrimination?

      The marriages of straight AND GAY expats are recognized for immigration purposes. The marriages of straight Caymanians are recognized for immigration purposes. But the marriages of gay Caymanians are not. That is legal discrimination, plain and simple.




      13



      2
      • Unison says:

        The problem is, who in Cayman will marry these local gays?

        And if a pastor refuses to marry a gay couple, will you be the first one to see the pastor arrested, fined or prosecuted for discrimination?

        No joke … this is what is happening in the United States. And what about discriminating against persons with more than one spouse, persons who are married to a minor from another country, persons Gd forbid, who want to marry their pet!

        Marriage started by Gd with 1 man and 1 woman … now we extending it to a whole host of things. Next child custodial laws 😒




        9



        7
        • Anonymous says:

          Civil marriage officers can easily be appointed. There are literally thousands of people in Cayman who support same sex marriage. No one is asking for pastors to be forced to marry gay people within their churches. This is about CIVIL recognition UNDER THE LAW and has nothing to do with religion or the church.




          9



          7
          • anonymous says:

            Hear hear!! Thank you to all the people who can be bothered to reply to the ignorant people on this comments space and explain what legal, decent, human rights means. Get a grip Cayman! This is the 21st century and most people (of average intelligence at least) will understand that it is NOT ok to compare homosexual marriages between two consenting adults to that of illegal, immoral marriages involving child brides and pets. FFS!




            7



            8
        • Diogenes says:

          @Unison Your argument is just a series of what ifs, do you not have any actual logical arguments? WE ARE ADVOCATING FOR CONSENTING ADULTS BEING ABLE TO MARRY EACH OTHER NOT MARRY KIDS OR ANIMALS, don’t be dumber than you usually are, both kids and animals cannot legally give consent and therefore they cannot be legally married period no one is advocating for changing the age of legal majority or the legal status of animals, the argument is invalid and it’s just what you use to try to scare people because you are a sad little fundamental fearmonger.

          Gonna also remind you that the legal institution of marriage is separate from the christian “sacrament” of marriage marriage is not a purely Christian tradition, there were similar practices around the world for hundreds of years, you do not own the idea of marriage, Asking for (actually demanding is a more accurate term) for the same legal rights and privileges that are afforded to others is fully legal and will be validated in these islands one way or another

          Muslims get married, Buddhists get married, Hindus get married, Jews get married, Wiccans get married. Germanic Tribes had marriages before Christianity existed, Romans and Greeks had marriages before Christianity was even a thing Not to mention the countless tribal ceremonies for linking two persons and the multitudes of other ceremonies that are an expression of commitment to humans.

          If more than two consenting adults decide they want to be married more power to them who am I or you to decide what they can or can’t do If “god” is so against it why don’t you let him speak for himself, why does an omnipotent, immutable, Omniscient god need a mindless worm like you to defend his causes in an online comment section? I am here representing myself I don’t claim to speak for the almighty

          FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DON’T READ MY POSTS CAUSE THEY ARE LONG THE GIST IS CHRISTIANS DON’T OWN THE IDEA OF MARRIAGE IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM YOU CAN DO YOUR NEXT BEST, GOOD DAY




          10



          5
        • Fred the Piemaker says:

          You get on a plane to a US state where it is recognized and get married there. Fact local registrars won’t do it is irrelevant. And you haven’t dealt with the point – how is it fair that an expat gay couple get rights but a Caymanian gay couple can’t get the same rights just because they are Caymanian. Wow. Just wow.




          6



          2
      • Anonymous says:

        Its not only immigration. I am a gay Caymanian and my gay Caymanian partner (not married) cannot be recognised as my dependent for health insurance purposes but a straight couple can! Oh…. we’re both born and bred Caymanians… mentioning this only to save someone the hassle of going on about ‘imported lifestyles blah blah blah….’




        16



        3
        • Anonymous says:

          I am a straight Caymanian man, and my long-term live-in partner has an excellent dental plan through her work which I am barred from as we are not married.

          Is that not discrimination as well?

          Civil partnerships would resolve both of our issues.




          7



          1
          • Anonymous says:

            You can get married. This gay couple can’t. Legal marriage would also resolve both of your issues.




            5



            3
            • Anonymous says:

              The year is 2017. Why should we have to be married for either partner to be eligible for health benefits provided by the other’s employment?

              That is blatant discrimination against unmarried people.
              Plain and simple.

              I guarantee, whatever your comeback, it will echo the fundamental offerings of those that oppose gay marriage.




              5



              2
              • Anonymous says:

                No, @2:10am. For what it’s worth, I support recognition of domestic partnerships for immigration / inheritance / healthcare and other legal purposes where such relationships are equivalent to spousal relationships (i.e., not merely shams to secure benefits).

                The point is that your lack of said rights is a SEPARATE issue. To say that neither straight nor gay people can have relationships that are not marriages recognized under the law says nothing about whether gay people seeking to marry should be entitled to the same treatment under the law as straight people wanting to marry.

                If you want to fight the domestic relationships recognition fight, I’m happy to fight alongside you. But you can’t deny a group of people one set of rights to which another group of people are entitled under the law just because that other group doesn’t have all of the rights it would like.

                That would be like saying that the law should recognize same sex marriage because women are still discriminated against in the workplace. Utter nonsense.




                0



                1
    • Anonymous says:

      I did not see “marry” on your list.




      10



      3
    • Diogenes says:

      They can’t get married and their relationships are not recognized by the state, legally two homosexual persons have no way merging legally into one combined entity as two straight persons do, to share ownership on property, accounts, assets ect, If one member of the couple falls seriously ill the other member cannot make the same decisions that a straight couple can make, they might not even have the right to visit in some instances due to hospital policies, If the person dies and there is no will ( or if the will is ruled invalid or ignored for one reason or another or contested by family) the partner has no rights to the other’s not to mention the numerous other financial, medical and social rights that are not afforded to persons who aren’t married

      I’ll remind you that in the past interracial marriages were thought of in the exact same way and now modern cultures understand they were unjust laws that denied equal rights to couples who loved each other. The issue of gay marriage is no different. Denying marriage to two consenting adults who love each other is to deny them a fundamental freedom

      And are you not merciful are the LGBT community supposed to be thankful that they aren’t being ” thrown off rooftops” the very fact that you said that shows how twisted this community is, I guess blacks should shut up about being discriminated against in the US and abroad because they aren’t being lynched in the streets right? You people have no common sense and no decency talking to us about morals




      16



      8
      • Unison says:

        Interracial marriages are not the same as Homosexual marriages. We are born with skin color – no one is born gay!

        Don’t compare the two like its race civil rights movement! 😐




        10



        17
        • Anonymous says:

          Actually, I’m not sure about the “no one is born gay” claim on your part.

          If you are a young gay male in a hardcore area of ’90s Jamaica or 00’s Saudi Arabia – where death or physical harm is a likely consequence – it is hard to believe such individuals were making a choice.




          9



          6
        • Anonymous says:

          So people choose to be gay? Sorry but.. you’re not very bright.




          12



          6
        • Anonymous says:

          Save that it is of course.

          Exactly the same biblically-‘justified’ hatred and drivel you’re spouting now was deployed against the civil rights movement and interracial marriages. It may be inconvenient for you but you can’t deny it.




          10



          3
          • Diogenes says:

            People like Unison only like facts when they agree with their antiquated beliefs that’s why they hate science so much




            5



            5
        • Anonymous says:

          Science is not on your side there, Unison. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, just like skin color.




          11



          7
        • Anonymous says:

          Unison… you’re challenged. Straight up from a Caymanian!




          6



          4
        • Diogenes says:

          No one is born gay, according to what studies from valid scientific institutions? According to what research, since when are you an expert on human sexuality and brain function? On whose authority do you assert these preposterous claims, when did you decide to be straight? It doesn’t end with you people, you think that hundreds of thousands of gays around the world choose the hard path in life being discriminated against by scum like you. God the fact that CNS allows you to post these lies on their site, promoting hatred with lies, for a “christian” you seem to lie quite a bit, isn’t that a sin? I guess it doesn’t matter as long as the filthy gays know their place and stay as second class citizens right?




          5



          6
          • Unison says:

            So you have evidence of a gay cell, or gay blood, or gay gene???

            🤔 I would really like to see you find the scientific evidence… good luck 😂 …

            🕙 the clock ticking away




            6



            2
            • Al Catraz says:

              At what age did you choose to be straight?




              2



              3
            • Anonymous says:

              Well, yes, there actually is evidence that there is a gay gene (or, more likely, a cluster of genes). Identical twins raised apart are more likely to be gay if their twin identifies as gay.

              But whether something is genetic or environmental is IRRELEVANT to whether it is immutable. We do not tolerate legal discrimination against the elderly, or the physically handicapped, and yet no one is born old and many who become physically disabled were not born that way.




              0



              1
      • Anonymous says:

        Gay couples should have the same rights as a and woman in their marriage, but it SHOULD NOT be called marriage, for marriage should only be for a man and a woman. For gay couples it could be called a contract between 2 same sex peoples. and they should only be able to call their partner, a partner and not a husband or wife.




        0



        0
    • Jotnar says:

      If your threshold of discrimination starts with throwing people off rooftops I would like to see what kind of society you would like to live in.




      8



      1
  14. Anonymous says:

    Absolute confidence in a book written by goat molesting tribe men speaks magnitude of the ignorance circulated here in Cayman. A secular Cayman has a bright future ahead of it while religiously infested Cayman contributes to regression. It’s time a rational and critical thinking body governed Cayman instead of superstitious hocus pocus cult.

    Seperate religion from state. Delusional people have no business legislating laws. Stay in church and pray to your sky fairy let the world outside continue to turn.




    43



    29
    • JTB says:

      ‘It must be true, I read it in this book about a talking snake’




      21



      8
      • Unison says:

        So what if the serpent talk, so what if it flew from tree to tree, and had wings, and was the most subtle of all creatures! Who cares?

        Rather, do you know what the serpent represents? Do you know the moral of the story? Do you see the underlying truths pertaining to your salvation???

        I hope so 🙂




        9



        14
        • Anonymous says:

          It’s one thing to believe in god jesus allah whatever, it’s another thing to pass laws and discriminate because of it. Do you’re religion on you, not the rest of us.




          10



          5
    • Diogenes says:

      You’re gonna catch major heat from this comment, I can’t wait to read it, where oh could the fundamentals be?




      2



      2
  15. Anonymous says:

    My friend, as you are well aware, almost every conceived and forwarded perspective by Whodatis is an original.

    I actually find your post rather insulting.

    Lastly, your spirited personal insults were a lovely finishing touch, as always.

    – Who




    6



    18
  16. Anonymous says:

    Thank you Dr, Raznovich, I agree with you wholeheartedly!

    Straight Caymanian




    48



    39
  17. Anonymous says:

    I trust every individual on this forum that supports Dr. Leo’s assertion (in the modern spirit of anti-discrimination) also supports the notion of 3 or more gay and or bisexual men getting married and gaining all the above referenced benefits as well.

    (I also expect zero flinches when the married quintuplet (2 gay men + 1 straight man + 1 lesbian woman + 1 transgender woman) moves in next door and invite your kids over for a sleepover with theirs.)

    As I have mentioned previously; in what world do the complexities of romantic or sexual human relationships end at 2 homosexual individuals … or “2” of any category of people for that matter?

    Yet we see so many advocating for a change of the definition of marriage that “does not discriminate against people that love one another”.
    Yeah, good luck with that.

    A slippery slope with no end.

    – Whodatis

    * Solution: Mandatory civil partnerships for all. (The original concept and laws surrounding marriage are archaic and not fit for modern purpose.)
    ** Be careful what you wish for and how you respond, “bigots”.
    *** The issue of legally recognised gay, threesome marriage has already been confirmed via a 3-way union in Colombia – and it is coming your way.

    (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/columbia-officially-recognizes-threesome-homosexual-union)

    **** My gay Caymanian cousins and relatives do not require Dr. Leo or any non-Caymanian to speak on their behalf as they are more than capable of communicating their requests and demands.
    (I suggest he undertakes greater efforts to know and understand this community to avoid such misplaced grandstanding as he becomes a part thereof.)




    27



    55
    • Anonymous says:

      Whodatis, I don’t think this is a question of a slippery slope. If anything, its the reverse of that, since it’s limiting a right that has already been extended to some but not others in Cayman.

      Can you articulate a reason why the laws in Cayman should treat (1) same-sex couples who are expats and got married abroad differently than (2) same-sex couples who are Caymanians and got married abroad?

      That is the question at issue in this case.




      44



      12
      • Anonymous says:

        I’m trying to save you and our community from the short-sighted nature of your proposal.

        Apparently some prefer to midday-sleep-walk into the inevitable.

        I tried.

        – Who




        12



        25
        • Anonymous says:

          Slippery slope arguments are logically lazy. We draw lines in our laws all the time. We can lower the drinking age without creating baby alcoholics. We can extend the hours that bars and restaurants are open without permitting liquor sales in gas stations.

          So too can we permit both straight and gay couples to marry the one person of their choosing without opening the door to any of the other . Opening the door to straight marriage, after all, didn’t create a slippery slope to pedophilia, beastiality, or polyamory, did it?

          This issue is about whether gay Caymanians should be entitled to the same rights as gay expats. That is the only issue before us. Stop trying to create fear merely to serve your own agenda and address the issue before you.




          9



          2
          • Anonymous says:

            Who specialises in the logically lazy, and on this issue he has nowhere else to go but to peddle his slippery slope tripe to support discrimination pure and simple.




            9



            0
            • Anonymous says:

              How so…exactly please?

              Thanks in advance.

              Btw, I said much more than just “slippery slope”, but I see we are taking the cheap shots this evening.

              – Who




              2



              4
              • Anonymous says:

                Do you know what a “slippery slope” argument is, Who? As a matter of logical construction? Because every argument you made in the body of your message was a slippery slope argument.




                1



                1
                • Anonymous says:

                  I hear you.

                  However, in my post I also cited an actual and confirmed case of a 3-way, gay marriage confirmed by the courts in Colombia.

                  It appears that you do not support the marriage of those 3 gay gentlemen.

                  Question: How do you propose we handle the spousal matter when one of the 3 partners applies for a work permit in the Cayman Islands?

                  – Whodatis




                  3



                  3
                  • Anonymous says:

                    In the same way we handle polygamous marriages performed in African and Muslim majority countries for immigration purposes.




                    0



                    0
    • Anonymous says:

      These Caymanians, for what its worth, asked Dr. Leo to speak up. He does not act alone. These Caymanians were rightly worried about the kind of hatred they would face from our own community–hatred which you can see from some of the comments below.

      Thank you, Leo, for being brave enough to be the focus of this hatred, and shame on all of us for tolerating a Cayman where we allow other Caymanians to feel as though they cannot speak out for themselves for fear of how our community would treat them.




      45



      25
      • Anonymous says:

        You and I appear to know different sects of people who identify as Caymanian.

        – Who




        14



        26
        • Anonymous says:

          And isn’t that the point? Not all Caymanians, and not even all gay Caymanians, believe or want the same thing. So stop pretending as though you speak for all of Cayman or all of gay Cayman. You speak only for yourself.




          13



          3
          • Anonymous says:

            Who speaks for the world with his words of wisdom, all genuine thoughts and with the benefit of his personally vouched for gift of hindsight. One day we will all realise we are wrong and he has been right in all things all along.




            5



            0
          • Anonymous says:

            No. You are missing the point.

            You and Dr Leo are (allegedly) stating that local Caymanians are in need of a saviour from without.

            I am telling you, this has never been the case as it concerns any contentious issue in my country.

            – Whodatis

            *Every society should be allowed to evolve its management of quirky issues at their own pace – so long as, for the most part, no one is being harmed.

            You know, (not) similar to how the rest of the civilised world believes the USA’s gun culture is ridiculous and barbaric – not a damn thing will change in that respect until the American people see fit.

            Or, how much of the rest of the western world views the British monarchy as archaic, backwards, and irrelevant – nothing will change until the Brits see fit.

            Who is some johnny-come-lately to tell either country to “get their sh!t together”?
            They will be set packing.




            4



            9
            • Anonymous says:

              No one said anything even close to that.

              What I said was that THIS couple asked Dr. Leo to share their story, because they feared reprisal from the community.

              YOU are the one who said that your “gay Caymanian cousins and relatives do not require Dr. Leo or any non-Caymanian to speak on their behalf as they are more than capable of communicating their requests and demands.”

              So here is one direct example of a couple that differs from what you believe your “gay Caymanian cousins and relatives” believe they are capable of in this society.

              So, once again, I point out that not all Caymanians, and not even all gay Caymanians, believe or want the same thing. So stop pretending as though you speak for all of Cayman or all of gay Cayman. You speak only for yourself.




              7



              0
            • Fred the Piemaker says:

              “I am telling you, this has never been the case as it concerns any contentious issue in my country.”

              Emancipation of the slaves in 1835? Didn’t see a lot of local lobbying for that. Your logic is exactly that of any dictator or majority discriminating against a minority. Hey, no one is complaining, so the stays quo is just fine.




              2



              0
              • Anonymous says:

                Ummm…this wasn’t “my country” in 1835. In fact, Cayman was not even an individual entity / territory at the time.

                We were under direct rule, therefore it was up to the racist, British Whites to finally regard people like me as human beings.

                They started and they ended it..sort of. No outsiders played a role.

                Nice try though.

                However, logic suggests this change of heart after 300 years of brutal enslavement did not come about by random collective grace.

                Nevertheless, feel free to post your understanding on the referenced period of history.




                2



                3
    • Anonymous says:

      No matter how many times you say “mandatory civil partnerships for all” are the solution, Whodat, doesn’t it a workable or sensible solution. But I know saying it over and over and over again makes you feel better…




      11



      5
    • Anonymous says:

      Sounds like the makings of an awesome sitcom right there




      12



      3
    • Anonymous says:

      For someone normally so against discrimination it is odd that Who adopts the tortured logic being used now by the US right to try to justify discrimination. But Who takes this issue in the style of a smug high school debater, albeit one that never could make it into the school squad. Civil union is discrimination.




      20



      5
    • Diogenes says:

      I trust that every week when you go to church you urge your church leaders to cast out all the women who try to teach in the church and that you get up and make fervent speeches about how we should ban divorces right? I trust that you do not eat shellfish or cut your hair. Lets take a moment and have a read of the good book,

      19 “Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening. 20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean. 21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 23 This includes her bed or any other object she has sat on; you will be unclean until evening if you touch it. 24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her and her blood touches him, her menstrual impurity will be transmitted to him. He will remain unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies will be unclean. 25 “If a woman has a flow of blood for many days that is unrelated to her menstrual period, or if the blood continues beyond the normal period, she is ceremonially unclean. As during her menstrual period, the woman will be unclean as long as the discharge continues. 26 Any bed she lies on and any object she sits on during that time will be unclean, just as during her normal menstrual period. 27 If any of you touch these things, you will be ceremonially unclean. You must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 28 “When the woman’s bleeding stops, she must count off seven days. Then she will be ceremonially clean.

      Leviticus 15:19- 28 is very specific
      I trust that you follow all of these rules right?
      You don’t?
      That seems rather hypocritical
      Seems like you are just an unclean sinner

      Actually sit down and read the bible before you try to condemn others based on the parts you like, Dr. Raznovich has done more to help the LGBT community on Cayman (as an expat no less) than you ever will, say what you want about him but he understands this community or else he wouldn’t be so good at pissing you off




      26



      18
      • Anonymous says:

        Diogenes, take your own advice and read the Bible, the whole Bible.




        16



        5
        • Diogenes says:

          Do you not like the portions I have selected? This is one of the portions that you ignore right? or maybe it’s the immutable word of god changed after christ’s sacrifice right? That makes sense




          11



          6
        • Unison says:

          Not only read it … but study its meaning and context before blasting its writtings




          8



          4
          • Diogenes says:

            Seems pretty XXXXX clear to me darling doesn’t take a rocket scientist or cipher to figure out the meanings in those word




            6



            5
      • Anonymous says:

        I know you hate the virtual guts of Whodatis, as you demonstrate your disdain in every response thereto.

        However, for future reference, you may want to momentarily suspend your ire prior to posting, as then you would have realized I did not utter a single word regarding the Bible or Christianity as I outlined my position.

        Nevertheless we see the prejudiced and misguided extended unloading of scriptural attack and deconstruction as the core of your rebuttal.

        Diogenes, you are a relatively intelligent chap, however I trust you now recognize how BLIND HATRED can send one down a fruitless and hollow path in life.

        Kindly assess your mindset as it concerns Whodatis and or Caymanians, and if in the end you cannot find peace within, may I suggest you cease your existence in this community as you are clearly a liability to all others and most importantly, yourself.

        – Whodatis

        * The above goes to everyone who supported your rebuttal and shares your general view of Caymanian society.

        ** This embarassing fumble will render your future (and past) offerings somewhat worthless as your deep prejudice has been exposed.




        11



        16
        • Diogenes says:

          You may not have overtly mentioned Christianity, sir but I inferred it from the position you have taken on the matter, of course unless you pulled your moral stance out of your ass which would serve to further delegitimatize it, It wasn’t so much of a personal attack on any person, I just tend to be rather forward and unpolished with my thoughts, I say what I think, learned that from my dear departed grandmother she was not one to mince words no matter who she was talking too, life is too short for beating around the bush and pleasantries, this is theological and philosophical debate and I intend to get my hands dirty, so that future generations may live in peace and love whom they wish




          9



          5
          • Anonymous says:

            I like you, Diogenes.




            7



            5
          • Anonymous says:

            1.) You were bodied in my previous reply so I don’t even know why you choose to continue.

            2.) An old university professor would always spell out A-S-S-U-M-E on the board and explain how it makes an “ass” out of “u” and “me”. (Someone could have done with a few of his enlightening lectures.)

            3.) Re: “You may not have overtly mentioned Christianity, sir but I inferred it from the position you have taken on the matter, of course unless you pulled your moral stance out of your ass which would serve to further delegitimatize it…”

            (Sigh … oh, the irony.) Where does one begin? Lol!

            Actually, I won’t. I have decided to leave you alone with yourself. I wish you both the best of luck.

            – Whodatis

            🙂




            5



            8
            • Diogenes says:

              Respond if you wish, make your points, correct me, unlike others on this page I debate not just to push my own agenda but to learn and exchange ideas unless of course… you have no response, I will eagerly await your response of what I meant in the message that I wrote because this ought to be good




              3



              0
            • Anonymous says:

              Shame we could not go to those lectures, but then one would have had to have gone red-brick and that really is an admission of being average.




              0



              0
    • Jotnar says:

      Dear God! Open the door to gay marriage, and before you know they will be shacking in up in polyandrous or polygamous relationships. And you certainly couldn’t let your kids associate with them!

      I know, you are going to say that’s not what you think, its what others do. But why on earth why on earth would you even think someone liberal enough to support gay marriage would even think such a thing? Why would you even think that is the goal or intention of gay people? Imagine if I said, hey, if you extend the right to marry to people of colour before you know it they will be shacking up in quintuplets and trying to lure neighbourhood children? Completely effing unacceptable to ascribe behaviours to a group of people based simply on their colour, religion, physical incapacity, sexual orientation, nationality… And to top it all off you call those people prepared to accept gay marriage bigots! Defies belief.

      Trot out your gay cousins again who you think should be limited to civil partnerships in case it offends the neighbours as some kind of evidence of how liberal you are (incidentally, as a matter of strict logic what difference would it make to a bigot if it were a marriage or a civil partnership to the allegation of a slippery slope to multiple relationships and child abuse?). Go tell Anthony Eden the solution is to get rid of marriage altogether and replace it with civil union, and see what reaction you get.

      You should be ashamed of yourself. I would hate to be your gay cousin, knowing that you think I am only entitled to lesser rights than a heterosexual because it may offend society.




      6



      0
      • Diogenes says:

        One of the best responses I’ve seen all day Jotnar, intelligent, common sense points and real argument against the insanity that these fundamentals believe will happen, The LGBT community wants equal rights and protections under the law I don’t understand why that is so hard for them to believe. So many of them struggle with their own illicit sexual thoughts and proclivities that they try to hold everyone else down, the same ones who are fervently against homosexual rights are the ones caught in a George Michael-esque situations (Such a loss to the musical world, still can’t get over it) Point is great comment, can’t wait to see the copy and paste response from the fundamental handbook




        2



        0
        • Anonymous says:

          Really?
          That doesn’t say much for you then as Jotnar was way off-base with his interpretation of my post.

          Apparently both of you believe that I believe “gay people will eventually start engaging in the aforementioned quintuplet scenarios”, as if some evil, form-changing beings.

          No. This is not my stance at all.

          What I am saying is, once the definition of marriage is changed or rewritten in the proposed manner, it will only be a matter of time before we are forced back to the drawing board to make provisions for the 3-way types of marriages as now confirmed in Latin America, as well as any other variant of ” loving union” – regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or number of partners.

          Come on, you are both smart guys – quit playing dumb.

          Just admit you got caught up in the popular tide, drank the kool-aid and didn’t think this one all the way through.

          Don’t stress – it happens to the best (and worst) of us.

          – Whodatis




          0



          5
          • Anonymous says:

            When the definition of marriage was “rewritten” to prohibit polygamy, I’m sure many people cried that it would be the end of child birth, too. But it wasn’t. Because those kinds of “slippery slope” arguments are idiotic. Don’t stress, Who, it happens to the best (and worst) of us.




            2



            0
      • Anonymous says:

        1.) You are angry and worked up because, as a result of my post, you now see the gaping holes in what you wrongly believed was a morally superior perspective.

        2.) When will people realize it is a racist insult to correlate interracial marriage with gay marriage? (Don’t worry if you don’t understand why – racist people tend not to.)

        3.) I specifically said “civil partnerships for all” – not for gays specifically. (Reading is fudamental.)

        4.) It is hard to take this thread seriously when so many of the posters would clearly discriminate against one of their children opting to marry a native Caymanian.
        (Nevertheless here they are attempting to regulate morality and equality though still plagued with the founding prejudice of western society.)

        5.) Can someone, anyone, finally acknowledge the elephant in the room which also happens to be the crux of my argument?
        That is the infinite parameters of “marriage equality” borne out of rewarding “love” with legally recognised marriage, e.g. Colombia 3some case.

        * From the moment this principle is enacted ALL FORMS AND VARIANTS OF MARRIAGE must be supported or upheld without question or hesitation – lest a bigot one becomes.




        0



        2
        • Anonymous says:

          To respond, Who:

          1.) You are angry and worked up because, as a result of my post, you now see the gaping holes in what you wrongly believed was a morally superior perspective.

          No, you made a series of nonsensical and unconvincing “slippery slope” arguments that don’t demonstrate anything. No one here is plussed by them.

          2.) When will people realize it is a racist insult to correlate interracial marriage with gay marriage? (Don’t worry if you don’t understand why – racist people tend not to.)

          I think people would welcome your perspective on that point, Who. But you must admit that, although the struggles are not the same, there are some similarities. Both struggles, at least, involved a group of citizens being prohibited from marrying the person they love on account of the majority’s view of the relative worth of someone based upon an immutable characteristic. In at least that way, they are undeniably similar.

          3.) I specifically said “civil partnerships for all” – not for gays specifically. (Reading is fudamental.)

          I don’t think anyone misunderstood that. It’s still a dumb idea that doesn’t solve the issue, as has been explained to you a half dozen times, because Cayman does not have the power to rewrite the laws of the world, and until the laws of the world are rewritten, civil partnerships for all perpetuate the disparity of rights afforded to same and opposite sex couples under the law. If you can demonstrate how that’s not the case, please do. But simply saying “civil partnerships for all” is the solution over and over and over again doesn’t make it true.

          4.) It is hard to take this thread seriously when so many of the posters would clearly discriminate against one of their children opting to marry a native Caymanian.
          (Nevertheless here they are attempting to regulate morality and equality though still plagued with the founding prejudice of western society.)

          Now who (Who) is making assumptions?

          5.) Can someone, anyone, finally acknowledge the elephant in the room which also happens to be the crux of my argument?
          That is the infinite parameters of “marriage equality” borne out of rewarding “love” with legally recognised marriage, e.g. Colombia 3some case.

          First, Who, you do not even understand the facts of the Columbia case. In that instance, three people signed legal papers with a lawyer IN AN ATTEMPT TO establish themselves as a family for inheritance purposes. That’s not the same as saying they are legally married, and it’s unclear whether that paperwork is even legally enforceable or whether a court would recognise it. That is not the same thing as saying Columbia legally regonises plural marriage.

          Second, that is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE issue. The reasons for or against recognising, and the state’s interests in, plural marriages are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from whether or not to recognise monogomous same-sex relationships under the law. Not all gay people are polyamorous. Not all polyamorous people are gay. Saying that two gay people can get married says nothing about whether plural marriages should or will be permitted.

          Just like the law can distinguish between the degree of relatedness before a person can marry his cousin, or whether to close a bar at 2am or 4am, so too can it distinguish between the marriage of two consenting adults from plural marriages.




          1



          0
          • Anonymous says:

            Interesting to see you support and encourage the court to not uphold the tenets of “equal marriage” when it does not effect your life or agenda.

            Sounds very familiar.

            – Whodatis




            0



            4
            • Anonymous says:

              What I disagree with is treating different groups of people differently under the law based on immutable characteristics of their being.

              Opposite sex couples can marry the single other person of their choosing. Same sex couples cannot. That is legal discrimination based on the immutable characteristic of sexual orientation, plain and simple.

              Straight individuals cannot marry multiple people. Gay individuals cannot marry multiple people. So as between straights and gays, there is no legal discrimination with respect to polyamory.

              Now, I don’t have enough information or experience to know whether polyamory is an immutable characteristic of one’s being. If it is, then I would agree that the law cannot treat polyamorous people differently than non-polyamorous people. But failing that, it is an area open to regulation, just like how the law can treat married people differently than unmarried people, because “marriedness” is not an immutable characteristic.




              0



              0
  18. Anonymous says:

    Assuming what motivates an omnipotent deity is the first major mistake in any practicing theist ideology. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.




    14



    7
    • Unison says:

      “so loud talking, can’t hear your self”




      5



      4
      • Diogenes says:

        You’ll have to forgive dear old Pope Unison the Ill informed he’s a bit slow, the complexity of your argument needs to marinate a bit before he’ll be able to understand what you mean




        6



        2
  19. Unison says:

    @11:54

    THE RAINBOW IS OF GRAVE SIGNIFICANCE –

    From the flood story of Noah, the 7 observable colored rainbow, is a sign of Gd’s covenant to mankind to never destroy all life on earth with a global flood again. It is also a covenant of Gd’s mercy despite mankind’s continual disobedience in failing to keep His moral laws, including sexual immorality.

    The 7 colors red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, and indigo, which appear when pure light passes through a prism – is associated with 7 moral laws that were highlighted in Noah’s days, 7 days of the week that were observed through the Jews until today, the 7th day being the Sabbath the holy day Gd set aside, 7 is of numeric value that denotes perfection and completeness, the 7 continents by which the flood divided the world – Africa, Antarctica, Australia/Oceania, Europe, North America, South America, and Asia. The 7 notes of a musical instrument and the 7 elements in the periodic table you study in science class. Gd chose 7 for a reason. Finally, Gd’s holy name J-h-vah found only 7 times in our King James Bible – I dare not casually say His holy names.

    Are you starting to see the significance of 7 and why the rainbow is of great significance in these last days? 😐

    Now, in ignorance, lo and behold, what is of greater significance, is the LGBT leaders have adopted Gd’s covenantal rainbow as their Pride symbol! It is of no coincidence that their gay Pride flags mocks the Almighty.

    Interestingly … 🤔 … The LGBT Pride rainbow uses 6 colors and not 7. The number 6 has always been not a good number; especially in Bible prophecy. If you count from Genesis the word “pride” six times in the Bible, it lands you on the Bible verse in Job 41:34 which reads about “Leviathan” king over the “children of pride.” Leviathan has always been a symbol of the Enemy by middle ages church commentators. Gilbert Baker, a drag queen was the first who came up with this rainbow colored Pride flag in 1978. Ever since then it has been used to spearhead a movement that will be victorious, as is prophesied by Jesus:

    “As in the days of Noah [or Lot] so shall it be before the coming of the son of man…”

    *Message: Let us never mock Gd and forget the significance of His rainbow covenant with Noah – it is a call to obedience in this time of mercy and grace. Let us not play around with Gd’s mercy.

    Peace




    23



    43
    • Anonymous says:

      This comment is so ridiculous I honestly can’t tell if it was intended as a joke?




      27



      15
    • Diogenes says:

      Since you seem to fancy yourself some sort of biblical scholar and source of religious clarity perhaps you care to explain why your book doesn’t mention anything that couldn’t be seen by the people who made it up, the other planets aren’t mentioned (because they though they were stars that moved erratically), black holes, other galaxies, and the other natural phenomena that occur in the universe yet you believe that God granted them a vision of the future and the doom that is coming? Surely he would have told them about all the things they couldn’t see as he was telling them about thousands of years in the future. This is the same god and religion that spends the beginning of the book, talking about the creation, did god forget to mention all the other things he created? If the earth is unique why did he bother creating other planets that are just empty for no reason? Why did he not mention all of the wonderful other bodies that he created Quasars, Pulsars, white dwarves. The point is the bible only mentions what the people who wrote it could see because they couldn’t write about what they didn’t know about because they made it up. There was no ethereal spirit whispering in their ears or else he would have told them about the unseen.




      20



      10
      • Unison says:

        When I was a kid I enjoy stories of fighting dragons. From the fairy tales, I learnt bravery and alot of good morals. It was truth, yes “truth” garbed in fairy tales 😁 They put me to bed. All to say, my friend many things in the Bible does not have to make LOGICAL sense. You live by LOGIC how in the world will you ever have faith in your wife 😂 Must you see before you act. And not everything in the Bible applies to you. You find history, poetry, proverbs, prophecies, and many fascinating stories yes. But … the BASIS is faith with unconditional love.

        And if you get rid of faith then my friend, you have to live the rest of your life “seeing to believe.” You can’t see through the eyes of true love …

        And when I say love, I am not meaning homosexual love that is unable to blossom into life and procreation. Gd’s love blossoms and contributes to family.

        Peace Dio 🤗




        12



        12
        • Diogenes says:

          Great reply, you have no reasonable response so you just play the blind belief card, “faith is blah blah blah, I have faith cause when I was a kid my mom and dad brainwashed me and now I can’t think critically and come up with my own logical conclusions to explain the discrepancies in the bible, this has been a very enlightening exchange try as you might your insanity is leaking out, slowly but surely more people are seeing it. We will win because no matter what you say your hatred will not prevail it will not define the people you oppress and they will endure like they have before. Chastise me for being skeptical while you are blind, if your god didn’t want you to see or think for yourself would he have given you the capacity to do so? He probably didn’t in your instance




          10



          10
    • Diogenes says:

      Also during your half-assed research you failed to uncover the meaning of the rainbow to the LGBT community, of course you in all your insanity jump to conclusions and connect imaginary dots to nonexistent lines because I’m sure the guy who made the flag that represents diversity and inclusivity was really thinking to himself “how can I prove that I’m a sinner I know i’ll use the number 6 cause that’s truly evil”.
      Mr. Baker said this about making the flag “Taking the rainbow one of the most beautiful, magical, spiritual parts of nature and making it a symbol” and you think he used the rainbow to “mock the almighty” You are grasping at straws and your lunacy knows no bounds this was an expression of oneness and unity for all a symbol of peace and beauty that represents all of us at once, no one is left out.

      https://youtu.be/S_bzpr2jalQ

      If you would like to see the interview of Mr Baker discussing the creation of the flag for yourself please use the link above, unlike the Pope Unison the Pompous I actually provide evidence to back up my claims other than my beliefs and antiquated system of thinking

      Also while we are on the subject of Pompous lets take a second to poke holes in the rest of his meaningless ramblings :
      Unison firstly if you count 7 days a week for 52 weeks (why isnt it 7 weeks to make the perfect year the earth must be spinning too fast due to satan’s evil and the number 6 ) to make a year for a for 20-30 years you’ll notice that your calendar will be off by a couple days if you had any common sense you would know that a year isn’t exactly 365 days it is 365.2422 days meaning that there aren’t 7 days in a week if you divide 365.2422 by 52 you will find that there are actually 7.02 days per week hence why we have leap years because the rotation of the earth like many of god’s “creations” are not perfect
      Funny 7 is supposed to be your holy number but if you spell it out (SEVEN) it is closer the number 6 than it is to the number 7 that means that it isnt perfect and that it is evil and from satan himself we need seven to be spelled “Seeveen” so God can be happy his perfect number can be perfect all the way
      7 being a holy number, yet according to your belief there are 3 aspects to God not 7
      , there are more than 7 planets in the solar system does that mean that God created it imperfectly by adding an extra planet?
      Clearly we are not holy then, where are my 7 toes and 7 fingers I have 10 of each, should I cut the extras off and become one with God’s chosen number
      As I recall there were 12 tribes in Israel not 7
      it rained for 40 days and 40 nights not 7 days and 7 nights,
      Didn’t two of each kind of animals get in the boat that couldn’t have possibly been anywhere near that size if it was made out of wood (forgetting the fact that a singular man and his sons are who you think made it) shouldn’t it have been 7 of each animal then,
      Since 7 is the greatest number ever lets get rid of all of our units of measure and recreate the system with 7 so we will always be holy

      Why are there more than 7 books in the bible?

      Does that mean that God had 7 Jesuses because one isn’t the magical random holy number 7
      what about the cross it has 4 individual portions not 7 the cross must be incomplete then.
      Everyone don’t stop until you have 7 of everything 7 houses, 7 cars, 7 wives , 7 kids (from your 7 wives) and most importantly 7 bibles one for each of the days of the week (if you were paying attention to the beginning you would know you actually need 7.02 bibles because again the week is not 7 days)

      You and your arbitrary beliefs are so ridiculous when are you going to realize that you have been conned into believing this lunacy.




      14



      13
    • Anonymous says:

      @Unison,

      Did you import yours, or was it homegrown? Is it organic, or is it contaminated with mosquito spray?… My advice to you is… throw away your batch!




      4



      4
    • Anonymous says:

      That bit of halibut I just had was good enough for Jehovah!




      2



      1
    • Anonymous says:

      The fact that you believe there are only 7 elements just goes to show how delusional and uneducated you are. Take an evolutionary biology and genetics lecture then get back to me.




      2



      4
  20. Mr Satan says:

    Reasoning > faith




    11



    9
    • Anonymous says:

      Many times reasoning appears as a syllogism. All cats have four legs.
      My dog has four legs. Therefore, my dog is a cat. Faith on the otherhand is an inward belief of something with no proof. Faith can neither be proven or disproven. The reasoning of mankind has been proven flawed on numerous occasions, after all we once reasoned the earth was flat did we not?




      13



      6
      • Anonymous says:

        The faith of man has been disproven on at least as many occasions.




        4



        4
      • Unison says:

        And I have “faith” in what you say is true 😁 …

        Whether you like it or not, ALL relationships must begin with faith!




        8



        1
      • Diogenes says:

        So you are saying don’t believe your lying eyes believe in this magical book with absolutely no proof whatsoever because that makes sense I guess




        10



        8
        • Unison says:

          “You focus too much on what the book says and not what it is teaches”

          I tell you what!

          Our “magical book” call the penal code has theft, murder, and rape which the Privy Council declares morally wrong – on the premises of Natural Law, sanctioned and crystalized by faith in a Gd! …

          With all do respect, this “magical penal code” has NO EVIDENCE to prove to you that theft, murder, and rape is wrong. Since you do not believe in a Supreme Being, I invite you to go ahead and break every one of these universal laws …

          Then come back and tell me the consequences 🤣 lol




          8



          4
          • Diogenes says:

            Sorry I forgot only Christians are against theft, murder and rape right? Cause I need to be a christian to understand that I can’t steal things from other persons because they are not mine, and that I shouldn’t go around killing people, I need to be a christian to understand that forcing myself upon another human without their consent is wrong right? People can’t just get together and decide something is bad without a big invisible sky god and his zombie Jew Son telling them right?

            Furthermore, the problem with your argument is that the penal code isn’t claiming that theft,murder and rape are the one true god, the penal code tells me that if I do any of the above said crimes the government in the name of the people of the Cayman Islands will charge, try and potentially imprison me for breaching the “social contract” for lack of a better word that I agree to by virtue of residing in the jurisdiction.

            The majority of people of the Cayman Islands have agreed that killing another person is a crime – the penal codes reflects that agreement, that is all the proof that is necessary
            No one disputes the existence and validity of Murder

            The majority of people in the Cayman Islands have agreed that taking another persons belongings is a crime – the penal code reflects that agreement that is all the proof that is necessary
            No one disputes the existence and validity of theft

            The people of the Cayman Islands have agreed that raping another person is a crime – the penal code reflects that agreement that is all the proof that is necessary
            No one disputes the existence and validity of Rape

            You act as if the Bible and the Penal code are even in the same class of documentation, the bible claims to be the truth and is little more than a collection of anecdotes with a sprinkle of historical evidence written over what a period of about 1500 years by around 40 individual persons not to mention that those people didn’t ever write the whole bible they wrote their own books or letters and said books or letters were gathered and put into order hundreds of years later by entirely different persons with their own agendas and ideals, not to mention the fact that they decided what was canon or not and took books and letters and decided they were not going to include them due to the discrepancies that arose

            The Penal code is the reflection of thousands of years of human experiences and historical evidence that provides a safe and productive society there is no arguing with its statutes it’s main purpose is to state what actions and activities are not allowed in the jurisdiction not what is moral. The similarities in common moral practices and the teachings of your religious text have few correlations other than the one connected variable, humans.Are you implying that before the bible was put together that there were no commonly held morals or rules? The ancient Sumerian code of Laws written thousands of years before the bible was even completed has some rules that might interest you

            Reminder this was written before Christianity was a thing and about 2000 years before Christ was “born”

            “If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
            If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
            If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver”

            As you can clearly see people were against murder and stealing long before Christianity, or the bible, these people worshiped what you would consider pagan gods yet they still hold similar moral positions in some instances to modern Christians because guess what, Christians didn’t invent morality, Humans have had morals since humans formed the first societal groups in Sub Saharan Africa

            This is definitive proof that Christianity is not linked with morals your entire argument is basically invalid. Because MORALS EXISTED BEFORE YOUR DESERT BOOK get that through your head

            Ignorance is no defense and that is because humans are believed to have similar aversions to certain acts, genetic and biological aversions to harming one another because as a social species we gain nothing from being alone and gain exponentially from groups, safety in numbers, higher probability of survival and reproduction not to mention a higher chance of finding resources. The more humans there were the more likely for our species survival ergo genetically we are opposed to killing our own kind. I don’t need an invisible sky god to tell me I benefit from being around others of my kind and that I shouldn’t go around killing them we exist to survive and therefore I will not hinder my own kind’s survival. The penal code uses common sense to try to limit the internal conflicts between groups of humans in one area, everyone agrees that certain things should be avoided for the betterment of our people as a whole. The penal code is a code of laws concerning crimes and offenses and their punishment that is all morals exist separately

            With all DUE respect stick to sunday school and brainwashing kids because you don’t have the Testicular fortitude ( to borrow a phrase from my local elected official) or the mental capacity to allow you to discourse anywhere near the level that I am on currently, maybe learn to spell basic English words before you try to educate people on history, anthropology and human behaviors




            5



            6
        • Anonymous says:

          No, I am saying what I wrote. There was no mention of any book.




          1



          2
        • Unison says:

          “Its all a joke! Go back to sleep now. Peace and safety”

          – Love Satan
          😂




          4



          3
      • Anonymous says:

        Faith is the ability to believe something without any substantial evidence. If everybody has “faith” in their own faith, then what good is “faith” in determining truth?

        It’s not against the law to have faith, but it should be illegal to enforce restrictions based on the supernatural as it is beyond irresponsible and proved throughout history.




        6



        3
  21. Anonymous says:

    Uh-oh, here comes the pitch forks and holy water.




    16



    12
  22. Anonymous says:

    I am sorry but the laws are based on the 10 commandments and other biblical principles – (at least they were). Now its lawlessness and sodom and gomorrah type behaviour that is the norm. God help us all




    32



    54
    • Anonymous says:

      Which rock have you been hiding under? This type of lifestyle has been around long before your fairy tale book and will be around long after it too. If you’re waiting on God to help, you might has well pen a letter to Santa while you’re at it.




      21



      11
    • Anonymous says:

      I hear what you’re saying, but I think that’s a common misconception. After all, what biblical principle permits divorce? And yet we allow for divorce in our law. And what greater biblical principal is there than “love thy neighbour”? Surely it is not neighborly to allow our laws to treat our Caymanian brothers and sisters worse than our expat friends.




      13



      6
    • SSM345 says:

      God doesn’t like this part of the world anyways according to the last few weeks and the Hurricanes that passed through the Caribbean; perhaps you missed that?




      9



      4
    • Anonymous says:

      Oh yes, plenty of Sodom sweetie. Get used to it. What kind of behaviour are you referring to? I suspect you don’t know, just afraid of the dark place right? Monsters under the bed? If I recall the Good Lord created us all, so everyone must be alright…love thy neighbor…and show love to those who betray you? How come you just choose the biblical bits you want to? That’s the trick isn’t it…control through reference to the bible..the trouble is, there are hundreds of other references in the bible countermanding each one you drag up to suit your purpose. One thing is clear…Christians are supposed to be about love and tolerance…however it would seem Cayman has altered that part.




      12



      7
      • Unison says:

        What type of love? You have worldly love and you have godly love.




        6



        10
      • Anonymous says:

        Loving thy neighbor does not mean you agree with their sexual orientation, but often homosexuals are the first to use the words, bigot and homophobe if you don’t!




        8



        12
        • Anonymous says:

          You can believe what you want for yourself, including that homosexuality is wrong or a sin. That doesn’t make you a bigot. What makes you a bigot is when you treat people differently and deny them the same rights you have because of what you believe about them.




          17



          5
          • Unison says:

            😞 How did we get from someone denouncing homosexuality is a sin TO he is really denying people’s rights ???

            Do you know there is a difference between NATURAL RIGHTS and LEGAL RIGHTS. Natural comes from Gd like the right to life, personal property, not being discriminated by the color of your skin, free-will, the right of speech.

            And Legal rights are all man-made has nothing to do with the Order of Nature.

            Tell me … How does one choosing a “sexual preference” like hitting on children, becomes a Natural Right which should be universally mandated by Law ???
            🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔




            6



            9
            • Anonymous says:

              Did you choose to be straight? One does not “choose” a “sexual preference.”

              And this article is about gay Caymanians being denied the recognition of their marriage under the law—rights to which expats are entitled in Cayman. That’s the denial of rights.

              The commentator responded to that article by saying that “Loving thy neighbor does not mean you agree with their sexual orientation, but often homosexuals are the first to use the words, bigot and homophobe if you don’t!” implying that mere disagreement with homosexuality incites calls of bigotry and homophobia.

              I corrected that commentator by clarifying that ones beliefs are irrelevant. What makes one bigoted and homophobic is when that person attempts to inflict those views on others to deny them equality under our laws or to treat them differently because of what you believe about them.




              6



              0
            • Diogenes says:

              The fact that you believe sexuality is a choice highlights just how uneducated you are, when did you CHOOSE to be straight? Because I’d don’t know about you and your insanity but my sexuality is something that I don’t have control of, there was no box to tick on my birth certificate, was there one on yours?

              And of course the age old excuse of involving homosexuals with pedophiles because someone who loves another consenting adult is on the same level as someone who preys on children
              you people are ridiculous.

              XXXXX




              7



              2
        • Diogenes says:

          The LGBT community doesn’t care if you like what they do or not, the problem they have is with you limiting their rights because of what you believe, they are equal to everyone else how is that so for you people to understand




          18



          8
          • Unison says:

            Has it not dawn on you that not everybody is equal? And thus certain rights do not apply to everyone, and some “privileges” are not considered rights! 😚

            If I am an employer of a constrution company and I turn down a little teenage girl from getting a job to lift lumber. Do you think its Natural Justice to prosecute the employer for discrimination? Oooo .. but you say she is equal just like the men 🤓🤣




            7



            4
            • Anonymous says:

              If the girl is qualified and able to do the work required by the position, then yes, that is discrimination. In fact, you would be liable under our Gender Equality Law if you did exactly that. Size does not equal strength, and woman does not equal weak.




              4



              3
            • Diogenes says:

              Ironic you openly admit that you do not think that all humans are equal, you have made my point for me you are so stupid you don’t even understand that, and then you use sexual dimorphism a concept you don’t understand and completely make a fool of yourself

              Your ignorance knows no bounds




              6



              3
          • Anonymous says:

            Ask yourself just what defines these ‘rights’?




            6



            0
  23. Anonymous says:

    Which department turned this down?! Heads need to roll – someone needs to get fired.




    18



    19
  24. Anonymous says:

    As much as I disagree with Alva Suckoo on his position against gay marriage, I recall him saying that everything the Government was proposing was going to only benefit gay expats and did nothing for the gay Caymanians.




    20



    2
  25. Anon says:

    What is Anthony Eden saying to this?




    5



    17
  26. Anonymous says:

    In the wake of Dr Raznovich’s case, many have leveled criticism at the couple for ‘stirring things up’ unnecessarily. It seems to me, that any rational person should now consider that Dr Raznovich’s personal battle, and that of his Husband, has long been fought and settled. There has been no personal need for quite some time for either of the couple to speak out.

    Dr Raznovich, however, continues to do so, locally and internationally (under, I am sure, great pressure to be silent) for the rights of Caymanians, young and old, to be treated with equal dignity under the law. I applaud him, and his husband, as a Caymanian, for the work they are doing, have done and continue to do. This is an expatriate couple, with nothing further to gain for themselves, standing up, under great strain, to fight for Caymanians to have the same rights they enjoy in the Cayman Islands and their own countries of birth.

    All that remains, is for Caymanians to rise to shoulder the weight of progress along with them as was the case in Bermuda. Dr Raznovich and his husband cannot be expected to continue to fight endlessly, but the door they have held open, and continue to hold open, and the resulting opportunity for young Caymanians to come out of isolation cannot be over valued.

    I wanted to repeat a quote from Dr Raznovich above:

    “The practical effect …is that the … authority is forcing Cayman[ian] people out of their homeland in order to live with the person they love. In effect, the authority is deporting Caymanians…”.

    If even one hopeless young person has seen the visible actions taken by Dr Raznovich’s actions and Mr Wayne Panton and taken comfort knowing that someone was fighting for them, then we owe them and their families an un-repayable debt. They were brave enough to stand up for our young people and their happiness when no one else would.




    55



    15
  27. Anonymous says:

    Tnis is our laws . Our constitution rights. Respect it! The bible comdones homosexuality. The bible speaks truth. How dare you come to our country and try to change God’s law and the ways of our people??? As a proud Caymanian we would rather marched and overthrow our Goverment if such shame and disgrace were approved by the board. This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination!!! We the Caymanian people beliefs will stand by only one thing and that’s God’s law!!!




    23



    49
    • Anonymous says:

      Our laws and our constitution prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, though. And these are Caymanian people who are being harmed by the incorrect and illegal application of our laws and constitution!




      16



      6
    • Anonymous says:

      It’s amazing how a book cooked up at the council of nicaea in 325 AD under the leadership of Constantine still have people in this day acting like the ignorant masses back in the dark ages. I guess ignorance really is bliss.




      14



      6
      • Unison says:

        The story of Sodom in the Old Testament, was way before Jesus was born. Thats way before 325 A.D. Still the book speaks truth.




        5



        1
    • Anonymous says:

      Surely you don’t mean to say ” the Bible condones homosexuality , you must mean “condemns homosexuality “




      8



      4
    • Anonymous says:

      (11:54 am)

      Do you have children or a child? If so, I pray he or she is not gay because you sound like you would disown them if they are.

      Let us not be the judge, jury or executor. Let us be kind to one-another, despite our differences. Let us be understanding of our flaws and weaknesses. Let us be the love we want others to be to and for us. Let us not act as if we are better than anyone, because we are not.

      I read the bible. I do not take one part and glorify whilst taking other parts and disregarding. Following excerpt from the KJV:

      Matthew 7:1-5

      “Judge not, that ye be not judged.

      For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

      And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

      Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, ‘Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye,’ and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

      Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”




      9



      8
    • Anonymous says:

      This comment and attitude is absolutely terrifying….




      9



      5
    • Al Catraz says:

      What does “God’s law” say about eating turtle or lobster?




      17



      10
    • Anonymous says:

      11:54 – To watch a group of Caymanians over throw a Caymanian lead government would fun. so I support you and think you should start today.




      7



      4
    • Anonymous says:

      Pride comes before the fall…and I believe pride is a sin? Make your mind up, either the bible applies to all or it doesn’t…and feel the love bro, despite your hatred of things you do not even attempt to understand.




      5



      3
    • Grammar Police says:

      Umm you spelled condone wrong and condone means allow/accept… so you probably meant to say “condemn” based on the context of the rest of your post. Either way those words have completely different meanings so don’t let this topic get you so heated that your illiteracy shines through.




      11



      5
    • Diogenes says:

      I am Caymanian and how dare you presume to lump me in with your hatred, you do not speak for me and you never will, I suggest that you refrain from trying to represent Caymanians because you bring shame to us all, you are on the wrong side of history and your name will fade into insignificance with your beliefs




      16



      3
  28. Anonymous says:

    I say it is high time that the Cayman Islands has a Pride Parade. I am not gay, but will be there complete with rainbow flag to support marriage equality for all. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is a form of love and should be respected.




    36



    28
    • Anonymous says:

      Pea brain how long have you been researching to come up with such a stupid comment?




      7



      14
      • Anonymous says:

        hahaha, that’s rich. Insults are the last resort of someone who IS truly stupid and cannot bring a reasoned argument to the table.




        9



        5
    • Anonymous says:

      We should have a Gay Pride Week that is near the time Miami Beach has the same. This way most the Caymanian Married men that are in “the closet” would not have to risk exposure by flying up to Miami.




      7



      7
  29. Anonymous says:

    The sky fairy won’t be happy. Apart from the fact it doesn’t exist, that is.




    14



    17
  30. Unison says:

    HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN – not only against the Creator Gd and societies, but to the person who voluntarily practices the lifestyle … and all god-fearing people should speak out against it!

    Nevertheless, Raznovich is right on two notes: “HATE” is another sin! And god-fearing persons may always hate, detest and speak out against the lifestyle, but THEY ARE NOT TO HARM A SINNER OR INCITE VIOLENCE AGAINST A SINNER. In Christianity, that is not the way of Christ either.

    Secondly, Raznovich is correct when he purports that we are not a THEOCRACY. We are not a government that is righteous and governed by Gd like it was in the days of Moses, David and Solomon. We are rather the Cayman Islands government, a controlled democracy under the UK’s Foreign Office. And certain of our leaders are not any where close to being role models when it comes to morality.

    SO WHERE DO GOD-FEARING PEOPLE STAND?

    We are waiting for the Messiah, a deliverer that will set up a Theocracy and punish anyone who is living a life of sin. That time has not happened yet. Meanwhile, we must continue shunning and speaking out against evil, teaching repentance and faith in Gd, and striving to live holy lives. We will always as well, keep Raznovich and the entire LGBT community in our prayers.

    THE SIGNS

    We are clearly seeing world events, a decline of immorality, solar eclipse, then earthquakes, hurricanes, more abortions, corruption in governments, world conflicts … we are seeing many things happening around us, and god-fearing people are being TESTED. Cayman, we know that it is a fulfillment of prophecy that the gays will WIN! They will have their way! At these times, does it make any sense for us to follow after our carnal desires unto sin, not teach our young people about living moral lives, not being present, loving all, repenting of our sins, and adding more to the judgements of Gd ???

    Shalom 😐




    23



    42
    • Anonymous says:

      Govern by God like in the days of Moses? Please let me know what version of the bible you read because all those people ever did under your God direct leadership was commit genocide, rape and enslave people wherever they go. Or you just conveniently gloss over those chapters 🤔




      10



      9
      • Unison says:

        You fail to understand the Hebrew Bible in its context on the subjects of genocide, rape, and slavery. Browsing atheist internet sites will only make you more one-sided. Let me explain each:

        Genocide – Gd commanded Israel to destroy idolatrous tribes and kingdoms that sacrifice their children to idols, murdered, did not keep morals laws. So they were very wicked people. Moreover, Gd is the Creator, so who are you to tell Gd who to give life and who He shouldn’t destroy??? He is Gd for crying out loud! And Israel was a Theocracy at that time.

        Rape – You atheists love an old testament passage about rape. You look to sing it over and over again. And so you this Torah passage about rape. And who do you go to for right interpretation of the passage. You fools go to the atheists! You would think you would go to the Jewish Rabbis and scribes for the rightful interpretation. But noooo … it is like I have a Japanesse car but I go to a Ford dealer to tell me about the inside-outs of the car! Foolish! Totally foolish and so you will always have a wrong interpretation of rape in the Hebrew Bible! I leave you that.

        Slavery – What are you talking about ?! If you are talking about Cattle Slavery like black West African people went through, that type of slavery is not found in the Bible. No where! In fact it is condemned in the Law of Moses. Jews being cattle slaves themselves were forbidden to enslave others. Now if you are talking about bond-servant that is a slavery that has nothing to do with FORCIBLY owning a person! If you like to quote KJV texts, again from atheists sites, bear in mind the word “servant” was translated in old english language as “slave.” You can’t possibly interpret the Bible from your modern day understanding.

        IF YOU FOLLOW THE BLIND, THEY WILL LEAD YOU TO A DITCH

        Peace 🙂




        5



        4
    • SSM345 says:

      So all the sinners who line up for Church every week are okay to carry on Monday-Saturday as long as they repent on Sunday but the Caymanian who is gay must leave their homeland?

      Stone-age mentality at its finest




      18



      7
    • Anonymous says:

      Your post is cancer.




      6



      7
    • Anonymous says:

      Divorce is a sin.




      6



      7
      • Unison says:

        So is pride with its many colors 👍




        6



        6
        • Diogenes says:

          The pride that is mentioned as sinful in the bible is self righteous pride, for someone who seems to hold himself in high authority with the holy you kinda missed a basic principle there of course Christians cherry picking parts of the bible is nothing new, generalizations are what you are good at Mr Unabomber you have to pick though either you can read between the lines with the “7 is a holy number” bullshit or you read it word for word “because the bible is supposed to be the immutable word of God, right” not the Cherry picked portions you agree with today. Funny I don’t see you rallying against shellfish, or Clothes of mixed fabric or cutting your hair or beard, I don’t see you warning everyone of the unholiness that is a woman during her period. YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE AND A CHERRY PICKING CHRISTIAN (not like that’s surprising)




          7



          4
    • Jotnar says:

      Unison, I am genuinely curious how you reconcile your statement that sinners should not be harmed or have violence incited against them, with the later one that you are awaiting a theocracy that will “punish anyone living a life of sin”. That sounds more like ISIS than Jesus, surely? Shouldn’t Christians hate the sin, but not the sinner, disavow themselves from the sinful behaviour and encourage sinners to repent, rather an punish sinners for their misdeeds?




      6



      6
      • Unison says:

        You don’t understanding 😑The Final Judgement and punishment of sinners belongs to Gd – not us! So we all need to repent, or, its too late!




        8



        11
  31. Diogenes says:

    Thank you Mr Raznovich, they are not going to like what you are saying but it has to be said, because contrary to popular belief there are gay persons who are Caymanian and as the rest of the world is beginning to see they have the same rights as any other person, no matter the religious beliefs of those in power or the electorate, the majority doesn’t always act in the interest of the minority and that is what the LGBT community is in Cayman a minority. The community needs protections from discrimination and equal rights just like every other minority. Something like the civil rights act of 1964 in the US is what will end up being necessary




    25



    16
    • Unison says:

      Don’t worry, you will have your day. Cayman will pass laws fully legalizing what you and others wish for. It’s coming 👍

      Luke 17:26




      6



      4
      • Anonymous says:

        Hooray! It can’t come soon enough.




        8



        4
      • Diogenes says:

        We will win because our cause is right, and because your hatred will not prevail, we will win the struggle because we love all and we fight for the equality of humanity not of some invisible sky god who allows death to ravage life and allows people to suffer in this life




        7



        6
        • Unison says:

          Hmmm 🤔

          So its RIGHT versus WRONG. lol … you are passionate about what is right. Have you ever considered where you got this idea and “standard” of what is RIGHT from?

          Diogenes, it is unlike you being an atheist to uphold a universal standard of right. Now where did that come from??? 🤔🤔🤔

          And don’t tell me you were taught about it in school 😐 We know better




          4



          3
          • Anonymous says:

            He probably was if he went to a school where they focused on education instead of indoctrination. You know the sort of arrangement reading textbooks or works on philosophy.

            Why don’t you start by Googling “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”? By way of warning – you may find it a little more challenging than Genesis.




            6



            2
          • Diogenes says:

            Funny how you assume I am an atheist Unison, I have never once said that there is no god, I simply not afraid to admit that there is no evidence of any gods Greek, Roman, Christian, Aztec, Jewish, Indian, Chinese the list goes on and on.

            For future reference I am agnostic

            and yes i do in fact believe that every human being has rights and that opposing said rights is wrong




            5



            1
            • Unison says:

              Ooo ok… so you are now an Agnostic. You sit on the fence and suspend judgement on the existence of Gd being unknown or unknowable …

              Funny 🤔 … you are soooo passionate about opposing Gd. It is almost like I can hear you say like an Atheist, THERE IS NO GD!

              I too reject many concepts and Christian concepts of Gd. Does that mean I spew nasty things about Gd? Do you know Gd! But you know lousy “concepts” of Gd.

              If you know we have lousy concepts of Gd and misrepresent Gd, then I would deferentiate ans be careful what I mutter about the Maker of my life. 😐




              1



              1
  32. Anonymous says:

    We Caymanians are never going to accept this as the social norm. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God, but don’t try to justify your perversions and force them on others.




    13



    32
    • Anonymous says:

      This couple is CAYMANIAN though. How can we turn our backs on our own people?




      12



      7
    • Anonymous says:

      No one is forcing you to be gay or get gay married. No one is forcing anything on you. It is you, Christians FORCING your lifestyle choices and interpretation of morality and love on the rest of us decent people, who don’t judge people for their nature or whom they choose to love and marry.




      22



      8
      • Unison says:

        Now where in Cayman do you see the Church FORCING decent people to live their lifestyle or attend their church ???

        🤔




        4



        3
        • Anonymous says:

          Literally every person here who believes the laws should reflect scripture is forcing decent people to live their lifestyle and attend their church. If you make the rules of your church the rule of your law, then you force into that church every Caymanian born into this country.




          5



          3
    • Diogenes says:

      It’s so interesting you claim that people are forcing their beliefs on you as you force your beliefs on others, using the same book that condones slavery and says that women should not be allowed to teach men ( of course you just add the word church to the passage today to try to make it sound better but if the bible is the word for word teaching of God surely he would have included his specific information) Your book doesn’t mention anything that couldn’t be seen by the people who made it up, the other planets aren’t mentioned (because they though they were stars that moved erratically), black holes, other galaxies, and the other natural phenomena that occur in the universe yet you believe that God granted them a vision of the future and the doom that is coming? surely he would have told them about all the things they couldn’t see as he was telling them about thousands of years in the future.




      7



      4
      • Unison says:

        In the Bible, Gd chose to tolarate and regulate slavery. But the question you should ask – does this mean He condoned oppressive slavery or cattle slavery? The Bible is very clear about this, and no was FORCED TO REMAIN AS A SLAVE. Not like the slavery AfroAmericans had to go through running from plantation owners for their lives and freedom. Or, the Egyptian slavery the Jews had to put up with for 400 years.

        I think the topic of “slavery” like rape and genocide, are one of your misunderstandings of the Bible, which athiests like yourself cleverly use to win your followers. May you repent from the sins that shackle you and come to the real truth of the Word of Gd.

        Peace 🙂




        3



        1
  33. a nony mouse says:

    This is an absolute disgrace! The tactic here from The Cayman Islands Government was to divide and conquer – once the vocal expats had been dealt with they figured they would be able to get away with treating our own people like second class citizens with no resistance. Shame on them! How dare our own people be treated in this way – I don’t care what they call it… Marriage, civil union, non religious legal partnership – our own people should have the legal right to a private famliy life where they are able to enter into the same legal rights and responsibilities as traditionally “married” people. The government have absolutely no business legislating against what goes on in Private Caymanian people’s family life.




    93



    51
    • Anonymous says:

      “Private Caymanian people’s family life” including their…alcoholic deeds and bdsm drug use??




      8



      10
      • a nony mouse says:

        Yes! In the same way the government recognizes it has no right to stop me from drinking, doing BDSM acts with a consenting partner (not into it personally) or take the drugs I am prescribed by a licensed physician – they also should have no right to prevent me from creating a legal union with similar rights and responsibilities that married couples have! We dont have to call it marriage if that offends – but lets not make any caymanian have less rights.




        12



        3
    • Anonymous says:

      No, shame on us…. in my house, play by my rules, otherwise …..




      10



      13
      • Anonymous says:

        In your house fine. Your house is not the Cayman Islands. Your house is just one among thousands of houses, where each of the owners or renters of those houses can do what they want, as long as they don’t interfere with others, or break the law. The law should be the same for all, otherwise the government will be sued, again.




        9



        1
  34. Anonymous says:

    Well done for spreading the news about the backwards attitudes in British territory. Time for London to drag them into modern times.




    80



    65
    • Anonymous says:

      To drag others into something that offends them is also against the constitution.




      10



      20
      • Anonymous says:

        Ahh, be careful with that whole constitution crap. Read it closely you will see all of it is subject to UK decision and rule. Therefore, what MAMA say goes!

        And guess what mother dearest will be singing soon on high pitch: HUMAN RIGHTS.

        I personally prefer to see and speak with the LGBT community over the 35 year old grannies of today’s society!

        Yes, I said it; 35 year old grand-mothers….food for thought!!!!!!!!!




        14



        2
      • Anonymous says:

        Please quote said part of constitution




        0



        2
        • Anonymous says:

          “Power reserved to Her Majesty

          125. There is reserved to Her Majesty full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Cayman Islands.”




          3



          0
    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed. The government can do all kinds of things for others, mess up liquor license and sweep politicians traffic matters under the rug but want to discriminate the gays. Horrible!




      13



      10
    • Anonymous says:

      I don’t think calling our people “backwards” is necessarily helpful. I think we should instead encourage understanding on this issue because that will ultimately encourage a better Cayman for us all.

      I, for one, can understand how someone who believes strongly in a faith that tells them that same-sex marriage is immoral might feel compelled to impose that view on others.

      I can also understand how someone who believes strongly that same-sex marriage is not immoral might feel compelled to call those that who believe differently “backwards.”

      Can’t we, though, let people of different faiths and beliefs continue to hold those beliefs without having our government discriminate against our own brothers and sisters?

      I liked what Colin Wilson had to say about it: http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/the-editor-speaks-immigration-shoots-themselves-in-the-foot-again/

      Even though he doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage, he nevertheless recognizes that treating Caymanians differently under the law because of their sexual orientation is deeply wrong, too.




      19



      4
      • Anonymous says:

        Imposing legal restrictions on non-believers because of religious beliefs is deeply offensive. They can believe in the stories if they want but it does not given a right to force other a to live by their works of fiction and the cults derived from it.




        12



        2
        • Anonymous says:

          I fear you may have missed the point a bit, 3:15pm.

          In the same way that the religious cannot impose their beliefs on gay people, we too cannot impose our beliefs that religion is a fiction on the religious.

          If they say you’re immoral and you say they’re backwards, no one moves closer to understanding the other, and Cayman moves farther from being a place where everyone is accepted and free to live their lives.

          What we can agree on, I think, is that no one should be treated differently under the law because of a fundamental characteristic of their being, be it their religion or be it their sexual orientation.




          7



          3
          • Unison says:

            I agree with you. But your last sentence deals with enforcement of the law on everyone. That means if a man makes wedding cakes and it is against his belief to support homosexuality in anyway, a gay couple can have him fined and imprisoned because he “treated them differently” than everybody else. But it is his freedom of religious belief.

            WHERE I STAND: Government should stay out completely from enforcing any law favoring a religion, AND ANY LAW FAVORING A SEXUAL LIFESTYLE. No one is being harmed. So leave people alone. What’s good for one, is good for all. 😐




            2



            1
            • Diogenes says:

              That gives establishment protections to the majority and not the minority, this argument could so easily be twisted onto you and others, The government shouldn’t favor any “sexual lifestyle” yet you are allowed to get married and get all the legal benefits of said marriage therefore the government is already favoring the heterosexual lifestyle by limiting the possible options for homosexual couples.

              If a black man walked into a bakery and asked for a cake for him and his significant other’s celebration or occasion and the owner said “whites only get out”, that would be a form of discrimination and the baker would be held liable under the law.

              Currently if a gay man walks into a bakery and asks for a cake for him and his significant other’s celebration or occasion. the law provides no protections to him and he could be discriminated against by the baker, with little to no legal consequences.

              Of course you are going to argue those aren’t the same situation, because that makes you look bad, but what has changed?
              One man has a different color skin something that he cannot control and didn’t ask for and the other man is gay something he cannot control and didn’t ask for

              That is the problem that we are facing currently, state endorsed discrimination, for a country full of the descendants of african slaves we seem to have a short memory on how the whole discrimination thing works and we are very eager to do it to others, shame on us and shame on you Unison

              The LGBT community wants equality we want to be treated the same as any other citizen of the Cayman Islands because we are equal to every other member of the Cayman Islands no matter what that person’s religious beliefs




              2



              0
            • Anonymous says:

              No, that’s not correct, Unison.

              Rights granted by the Bill of Rights in the Caymanian constitution are vertical, not horizontal. In other words, the Bill of Rights applies only to the government, not to private citizens. The government cannot restrict rights, like it is doing against this gay Caymanian couple, but the law says nothing about private citizens. Only if there are specific laws prohibiting discrimination by employers / private citizens (as is the case with the Gender Equality Law) does the law extend to private citizens.




              1



              0
            • Anonymous says:

              Are you suggesting that no one should be permitted to marry in Cayman, because the marriage law favors the sexual lifestyle of heterosexuals?

              And are you really saying that no one is being harmed, if a Caymanian must leave his or her home to live with their spouse? How is that Caymanian not being harmed?




              2



              1

Please include your email address in the form below if you are using your real name. You can use a pseudonym, with or without leaving an email address, or just leave the form blank to be "Anonymous". All comments will be moderated before they are published. Please read the CNS Comment Policy at the top of this page.