EU accepts local LGBT activists’ legal petition

| 09/11/2017 | 264 Comments

(CNS): The legal institutions of the European Union will be giving consideration to claims of discrimination by the local lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community after a petition delivered to the European Parliament by Colours Cayman was accepted. This is a small but important first step for the activists, who have been trying to attract the attention of the British authorities to the inequitable treatment faced by the LGBT community here, especially regarding same-sex expatriate couples versus same-sex Caymanian couples. Colours asked the EU to consider the UK government’s failure to address the issues relating to the discrimination during the Brexit talks.

Colours submitted the petition to the European Parliament earlier this year after attempts to petition the British authorities were ignored. The activists are concerned about the broad discrimination faced by members of the LGBT community but also the specific situation that has arisen over the rights of Caymanians in same-sex partnerships. While the Cayman Islands immigration authorities are recognising the dependency rights of expatriate same-sex couples legally married in other jurisdictions, a Caymanian who is legally married to an expat has had their dependency application denied.

LGBT people in the UK’s Caribbean territories are being discriminated against compared to other British Overseas Territories, where they are enjoying equal rights to same-sex couples. Colours Cayman stated in a release that “the sad reality is that the unwillingness to change with respect to the remaining …territories”, which includes Cayman, is as a “result of their bigotry, hidden under the guise of cultural differences”.

Colours Cayman cited a case in the European Court of Human Rights last year, Taddeucci v Italy, where the court “held expressly and unanimously that the European Convention on Human Rights requires that states that are subject to the Convention (this includes the Cayman Islands) recognise same-sex couples for immigration purposes regardless of whether the country has in place, locally, a legal framework providing rights for LGBTI people”.

The group therefore believes the rejection of  the rights of a same-sex spouse of a Caymanian is discriminatory.

“Not only does this decision breach the Cayman Islands Constitution and a prior decision of Immigration that benefited various expats, but it also breaches international law,” Colours stated.

The activists said that the UK government has the constitutional powers to redress the breaches of international law in Cayman but it has been reluctant to step in, making it an accomplice to Cayman’s discrimination.

With the acceptance of the petition, the activists hope that as the negotiations over the UK’s exit from the European Union continue, the issue will include the enforceable condition that the UK Government rectifies non-compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights by its territories.

“It is important that the UK Government takes note of this petition and takes steps to fulfil its constitutional duties in the Cayman Islands by securing good governance for all their people, including LGBTI people,” Colours said.

See the full press release in the CNS Library

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Category: Local News

Comments (264)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Unison says:

    @ 10:25

    lol … your spewing away, acting like there’s only one side to this issue, Thoughtsy.

    I too can post you a list of internet links of scientific studies and volumns of works, showing children do NOT do well living with same-sex couples.

    What is “baseless assertions” to you, is factual claims I have made regarding unreliable and flawed methods of small and biased samplings. Just because CNS post a left sponsored guardian article, regarding studies and samplings made in Australia, does not mean its truth. For you to drink the coolaid, just shows your ignorance and lack of understanding how these studies are conducted.

    I challenge you before you write elaborate and long comments on this site, to read up on both sides of equation, and USE COMMON SENSE. We can then have an interesting Part 2 debate on this very important subject pertaining to our children.

    *Questions for you: In the field of statistics, what is sampling ACHESS used in Australia?

    (http://mspgh.unimelb.edu.au/centres-institutes/centre-for-health-equity/research-group/jack-brockhoff-child-health-wellbeing-program/research/impact-of-a-changing-world-on-childrens-lives/the-australian-study-of-child-health-in-same-sex-families-achess)

    Is “convenience sampling” with ready available data, the best technique for ACHESS to use? Why was a nation wide random sampling not used?

    And for further learning, read this same-sex summary submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court –

    “Of the several dozen extant studies on same-sex parenting in the past two decades, only eight have used a random sample large enough to find evidence of lower well-being for children with same-sex parents if it exists. Of these eight, the four most recent studies, by Dr. Mark Regnerus, Dr. Douglas Allen and two by Dr. Paul Sullins, report substantial and pertinent negative outcomes for children with same-sex parents. The four earlier studies, by Dr. Michael Rosenfeld and three by Dr. Jennifer Wainright and colleagues, find no differences for children with same-sex parents because, due to errors in file coding and analysis, a large portion of their samples actually consists of children with heterosexual parents.
    When the sample used by Wainright’s three studies is corrected of this error and re-analyzed, these data also show negative outcomes for children with same-sex parents similar to those reported by Regnerus and Sullins. More importantly, they also show substantially worse outcomes … ” Continue reading from the American College of Pediatricians and Family Watch International submissions to the U.S. Supreme Court, 14-556_American_College_of_Pediatricians.pdf –

    https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change

    Peace,
    Unison

    * Until then PART 2 🤔




    10



    3
    • Thoughtsy says:

      Wow, Unison. Just, WOW.

      I do hope you’re aware that the “American College of Pediatricians” is an anti-LGBT hate group that was intentionally given a deceptive name, so as to be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics—the actual professional organization of pediatricians in America (of which my own mother is a member, for what it’s worth) And yet you believe that it is the LEFT that is paying for studies to support its viewpoint?

      See:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians
      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/political-minds/201705/the-american-college-pediatricians-is-anti-lgbt-group

      You might be interested to learn that actual professional organization—the American Academy of Pediatrics—believes that:

      “Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.”

      See:
      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1374

      And, for what it’s worth, ACHESS was a review of four separate underlying studies, which in turn reviewed over 150 studies, in total “capturing data from 500 children in 315 families. Quantitative data was gathered between May and December 2012 using gold standard, validated child health and wellbeing survey instruments. Qualitative data was captured through family interviews between January and August 2013.”

      ACHESS is not the only study on this topic. Far from it. The point is there are literally hundreds of studies, many peer-reviewed with robust sample sizes, that conclude what you refuse to admit.

      Nice try, though.




      6



      8
      • Thoughtsy says:

        More specifically, a 2010 Stanford study examined the advancement of 3,500 children with same-sex parents using census data and found no significant differences between households headed by same-sex and opposite-sex parents when controlling for family background.

        Another used a sampling pool of over 20,000 children (158 lived in a same-sex parent household) and controlled for family disruptions to find that children of same sex couples showed no significant differences from their peers in school outcomes.

        Here is a list of 75 studies compiled by Columbia Law School that have found that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than others:

        1. Adams, J., & Light, R. (2015). Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes. Social Science Research, 53, 300-310.
        2. Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: metaanalysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(2), 19-35.
        3. Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(4), 335-351.
        4. Baiocco, R., Santamaria, F., Ioverno, S., Fontanesi, L., Baumgartner, E., Laghi, F., Lingiardi V. (2015). Lesbian mother families and gay father families in Italy: family functioning, dyadic satisfaction, and child well-being. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12(3), 202-212.
        5. Bailey, J., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 124-129.
        6. Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Jrnl of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 3-22.
        7. Bos, H. M. W. (2010). Planned gay father families in kinship arrangements. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31(4), 356–371.
        8. Bos, H. M. W., Knox, J. R., van Rijn-van Gelderen, L., Gartrell, N. K. (2016). Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Households and Child Health Outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children’s Health. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 37(3), 179–187.
        9. Bos, H. M. W., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2010). Children’s gender identity in lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families. Sex Roles, 62(1-2), 114-126
        10. Bos, H. M. W., van Balen F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2005). Lesbian families and family functioning: an overview. Patient Education and Counseling, 59(3), 263-275.
        11. Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbianparent families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(1), 38-48.
        12. Bos, H., Gartrell, N., & van Gelderen, L. (2013). Adolescents in lesbian families: DSM-oriented scale scores and stigmatization. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 25(2), 121 – 140.
        13. Bos, H., van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. (2014). Lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families: adolescent-parent relationship quality and adolescent well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 1-16.
        14. Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., Peyser, H., & van Balen, F. (2008). The USA national longitudinal lesbian family study (NLLFS): homophobia, psychological adjustment, and protective factors. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12(4), 455-471.
        15. Bos, H. M. W., Goldberg, N. K, van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. (2012). Adolescents of the U.S. National longitudinal lesbian family study: male role models, gender role traits and psychological adjustment. Gend. & Soc., 26(4), 603–638.
        16. Brewaeys, A., Ponjaert, I., van Hall, E. V., & Golombok, S. (1997). Donor insemination: child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families. Human Reproduction, 12(6), 1349-1359.
        17. Brewaeys, A., & van Hall, E. V. (1997). Lesbian motherhood: the impact on child development and family functioning. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 18(1), 1-16.
        18. Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Child Development, 69(2), 443-457.
        19. Crouch, S. R., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J., & Davis, E. (2014). Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health, 14 (635), 1-12.
        20. Crowl, A. L., Ahn, S., & Baker, J. (2008). A meta-analysis of developmental outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(3), 385-407.
        21. Erich, S., Leung, P., & Kindle, P. (2005). A comparative analysis of adoptive family functioning with gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parents and their children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1 (4), 43-60.
        22. Erich, S., Kanenberg, H., Case, K., Allen, T., & Bogdanos, T. (2009). An empirical analysis of factors affecting adolescent attachment in adoptive families with homosexual and straight parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(3), 398-404.
        23. Falk, P. J. (1989). Lesbian mothers: Psychosocial assumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44(6), 941-947.
        24. Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child development in adoptive families: does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science, 14(3), 164-178.
        25. Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2013). Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development, 84(4), 1226-1240.
        26. Farr, R. H. (2017). Does parental sexual orientation matter? A longitudinal follow-up of adoptive families with schoolage children. Developmental Psychology, 53(2), 252-264.
        27. Fedewa, A. L., & Clark, T. P. (2009). Parent practices and home-school partnerships: a differential effect for children with same-sex coupled parents? Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 5(4), 312-339.
        28. Flaks, D. K., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995) Lesbians choosing motherhood: a comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 105-114.
        29. Fulcher, M., Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (2002). Contact with grandparents among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Parenting, 2(1), 61-76.
        30. Fulcher, M., Sutfin, E. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2008) Individual differences in gender development: associations with parental sexual orientation, attitudes, and division of labor. Sex Roles, 58(5/6), 330–341.
        31. Gartrell, N. K., Bos, H. M. W., & Goldberg, N. G. (2011). Adolescents of the U.S. National longitudinal lesbian family study: sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual risk exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1199-1209.
        32. Gartrell, N. K., & Bos, H. M. W. (2010). Us national longitudinal lesbian family study: psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents.Pediatrics, 126(1), 28-36.
        33. Gartrell, N. K., Bos, H. M. W., Peyser, H., Deck, A., & Rodas, C. (2012). Adolescents with lesbian mothers describe their own lives. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(9), 1211-1229.
        34. Gartrell, N. K., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005). The national lesbian family study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(4), 518-524.
        35. Goldberg, A. E. (2007). (How) does it make a difference? Perspectives of adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4), 550-562.
        36. Goldberg, A., & Smith, J. (2013). Predictors of psychological adjustment in early placed adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 431-42.
        37. Goldberg, N. G., Bos, H. M. W., & Gartrell, N. K. (2011). Substance use by adolescents of the USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(8), 1231-1240.
        38. Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-Somers, J., Stevens, M., Golding, J. (2003). Children with lesbian parents: A community study. Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 20-33.
        39. Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24(4), 551-572.
        40. Golombok, S. & Tasker, F. (1996) Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families. Developmental Psychology, 32 (1), 3-11.
        41. Golombok, S., Tasker, F., & Murray, C. (1997). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(7), 783-791.
        42. Gottman, J. S. (1989). Children of gay and lesbian parents. Marriage & Family Review, 14(3-4), 177-196.
        43. Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. E., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 167-184.
        44. Harris, M., & Turner, P. (1986). Gay and lesbian parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(2), 101-13.
        45. Hoeffer, B. (1981). Children’s acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian-mother families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51 (3), 536–544.
        46. Huggins, S. (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. Journal of Homosexuality, 18(1-2), 123-135.
        47. Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., & Roy, R. (1981). Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51(3), 545-551.
        48. Lamb, M. E. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: factors affecting children’s adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16(2), 98-111.
        49. Lavner, J. A., Waterman, J., & Peplau, L. A. (2012). Can gay and lesbian parents promote healthy development in high-risk children adopted from foster care? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(4), 465-472.
        50. Leddy, A., Gartrell, N., & Bos, H. (2012). Growing up in a lesbian family: the life experiences of the adult daughters and sons of lesbian mothers. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8(3), 243-257.
        51. Lewis, K. G. (1980). Children of lesbians: Their point of view. Social Work, 25(3), 198-203.
        52. Lick, D. J., Patterson, C. J., & Schmidt, K. M. (2013). Recalled social experiences and current psychological adjustment among adults reared by gay and lesbian parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 9(3), 230-253.
        53. MacCallum, F., & Golombok, S. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(8), 1407- 1419.
        54. Miller, J. A., Jacobsen, R. B., & Bigner, J. J. (1981). The child’s home environment for lesbian vs. heterosexual mothers: a neglected area of research. Journal of Homosexuality, 7(1), 49-56.
        55. Patterson, C. J. (1995). Families of the lesbian baby boom: parents’ division of labor and children’s adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 115-123.
        56. Patterson, C. J. (2001). Families of the Lesbian baby boom: Maternal mental health and child adjustment. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 4(3), 91-107.
        57. Patterson, C. J., Hurt, S., & Mason, C. D. (1998). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Children’s contact with grandparents and other adults.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(3), 390-399.
        58. Pawelski, J. G. et al (2006). The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnerships laws on the health and wellbeing of children.Pediatrics, 118(1), 349 -364.
        59. Perrin, E. C. (2002). Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109(2), 341-344.
        60. Perry, B., Burston, A., Stevens, M., Golding, J., Steele, H., & Golombok, S. (2004). Children’s play narratives: what they tell us about lesbian-mother families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(4), 467-479.
        61. Potter, D. (2012).Same-sex parent families and children’s academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(3), 556–571.
        62. Rosenfeld, M. J. (2010).Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography, 47(3), 755-775.
        63. Ryan, S. (2007). Parent-child interaction styles between gay and lesbian parents and their adopted children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3(2), 105-132.
        64. Shechner, T., Slone, M., Lobel, T., & Schecter, R. (2013). Children’s adjustment in non-traditional families in Israel: the effect of parental sexual orientation and the number of parents on children’s development. Child: Care, Health, & Development, 39(2), 178-184.
        65. Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 66(2), 159-183.
        66. Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 26(3), 224-40.
        67. Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1995). Adults raised as children in lesbian families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(2), 203-215.
        68. van Gelderen, L., Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N., & Hermanns, J., Perrin, E. C. (2012). Quality of life of adolescents raised from birth by lesbian mothers: the us national longitudinal family study. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 33(1), 17-23.
        69. van Gelderen, L., Gartrell, N. N., Bos, H. M. W., & Hermanns, J. M. A. (2013). Stigmatization and promotive factors in relation to psychological health and life satisfaction of adolescents in planned lesbian families. Journal of Family Issues, 34(6), 809-827.
        70. van Rijn-van Gelderen, L., Bos, H. M. W., & Gartrell, N. (2015) Dutch adolescents from lesbian-parent families: how do they compare to peers with heterosexual parents and what is the impact of homophobic stigmatization? Journal of Adolescence, 40, 65-73.
        71. Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2002). What does it mean for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family created by means of donor insemination? Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 20(4), 237- 252.
        72. Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2003). Family functioning in lesbian families created by donor insemination. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73(1), 78-90.
        73. Wainright, J. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2006).Delinquency, victimization, and substance use among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 526-530.
        74. Wainright, J. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 117-126.
        75. Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic
        relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development, 75(6), 1886-1898.

        Here, for sake of completeness, is a list of four studies, also compiled by Columbia Law School, that conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages. Each of them, however, improperly includes children actually raised by opposite-sex parents (but in which one or more parents subsequently came out as gay or lesbian) as being children of a same-sex relationship, and thus are so flawed as to be misleading:

        1. Allen, D. W. (2013). High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households. Review of Economics of the Household, 11(4), 635-658.
        2. Regnerus, M. (2012). How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research, 41(4), 752-770.
        3. Sarantakos, S. (1996). Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development. Children Australia, 21(3),
        23-31.
        4. Sullins, D. P. (2015). Emotional problems among children with same-sex parents: difference by definition. British
        Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, (forthcoming).

        You can read the abstract for every single one of them here: http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/




        3



        5
        • Thoughtsy says:

          Did you want to dispute climate change next, Unison? What does your common sense tell you about that?




          1



          5
  2. Unison says:

    @4:37 – Fred the Piemaker

    Let us reason. By you saying it is fair for same-sex couples to be given the same benefits of common marriage couples through government legislation, will not our Caymanian children be at a more disadvantage in not having a biological mom and dad, since adoption will most likely become the main route for same-sex couples to have children? I think most people like yourself are ignorant of the fact that children are raised best with their biological parents. father and mother.

    Now you talk about Christian morals, but where is the fairness in having a law that places children in these same-sex homes?
    Note: it is a natural right of a child to have his or her biological mom and dad, and be raised by them. This can be scientifically proven unlike “gay rights” with no findings of a gay gene. Wouldn’t it be selfish and morally wrong for the government to declare same-sex marriage into law, and close its eyes on repercussions it will have on innocent children?

    So we see, in gays pushing for their socalled rights, children’s rights should come first! Piemaker, you can plainly see that the government will be contributing to the creation of many motherless and fatherless homes. And of course, bad homes leads to a weakened society.

    So I say no! I could never support entities like Thoughtsy, Al, Diogenes, Colours Cayman, and others who are pushing for socalled “gay rights” to be recognized on EQUAL footing with the rights of common marriage couples, and eventually undermine the birthrights of Caymanian children, and change so many legal documents, and our education materials in the process.

    NOW THAT IS NOT FAIR!

    It is the role of government to first protect the helpless and innocent members of society. Not follow after the selfish whims and desires of a minority, by enforcing socalled anti-discrimination laws upon everyone 😐




    9



    5
      • Unison says:

        Thank you CNS for the link. Yes, I am aware of  earlier articles posted on those findings. It seems like a triumph for those favoring same-sex parenting in Australia. Bear in mind the Medical Journal of Australia along with the  research centers are being heavily influenced by same-sex supporters FINANCIALLY. So there is room for corrupt findings as well. It wouldn’t surprise me during this intense time, you even have scientists claiming they found a gay gene. There is word that these research organizations did not randomly select their couples properly. That there was no fact checking, and compared to the population of Australia, the sampling is too small. But I leave that guessing game to the statistians.

        All I know in light of various paid findings and studies, we have one thing in common – a common sense. We can appeal to what we naturally observe to be true and real:  still the issue is not whether same-sex couples can be good parents, but whether we as responsible guardians of Caymanian society should be denying a child their “natural right” to a father or mother – and causing this severance to happen, not by a broken-home-circumstance like a tragedy, but as a matter of government policy!

        So the question- do we start supporting a government of an EU style controlled system and start denying Caymanian children their birth rights, and a host of other rights through anti-discrimination measures?

        Unison




        8



        2
        • Thoughtsy says:

          The Nazis used “common sense” and “science” to subjugate the Jews. Slave traders used “common sense” to claim that indigenous peoples were less “civilized” than the white man and therefore “deserving” of slavery. Men used “common sense” to claim that women didn’t have the capacity to make complex decisions like voting.

          Your “common sense” is nonsense. The only thing that is common sense to me is that we shouldn’t treat people differently based on who they are, or deny people the freedom to be with the person they love.

          P.S. Cayman is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is not about EU control. This is about doing what Cayman is already committed to do.




          2



          5
          • Unison says:

            Respectfully, here is where we divide Thoughtsy.

            My common sense deals with natural observation and personal experiences. And your socalled “common sense” deals with claims and more claims.

            Unison
            * accused of homophobia, hate, and bigotry




            4



            0
            • Thoughtsy says:

              I would encourage you, then, to obtain more observations and personal experiences to shape your viewpoint, because, the way I see it, there is nothing “natural” about what you claim.

              I would encourage you to spend some more time with your gay and lesbian neighbors. Meet more children of loving same-sex couples. Spend a dinner with a same-sex couple asking them, without judgment, why marriage might matter to them, and what it might mean to their family.

              Then let’s have this conversation again on an informed basis.




              3



              4
        • Thoughtsy says:

          On what basis do you make the claim that this particular study (published in the peer-reviewed journal by the Australian Medical Association) was funded by “same-sex supporters”?

          On what basis do you make the claim that “There is word that these research organizations did not randomly select their couples properly.”

          Or the claim “that there was no fact checking, and compared to the population of Australia, the sampling is too small”?

          As a counter point to your baseless assertions, I will note that:

          – A 2017 review of 79 studies concluded “an overwhelming scholarly consensus … that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children”
          – A 2014 review of over 40 studies concluded children of same-sex couples do as well as other children across a range of measures including academic, social, cognitive and psychological health
          – A 2013 review of the Australian and international research found “being raised by same-sex parents does not harm children”
          – A 2010 meta-analysis of 33 studies found parents’ gender or sexuality does not adversely affect child health or wellbeing

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2017-10-23/marriage-debate-puts-kids-at-risk/9075384




          1



          5
    • Anonymous says:

      This is the logic of fundamentals, Unison would rather have children left to the care of group homes and the like instead of in a loving home with two adults who can provide for them independently because of his ridiculous beliefs and assumptions

      Sad




      9



      7
    • Thoughtsy says:

      Unison, what about the rights of the children of gay and lesbian couples (of which there are many in Cayman) who are denied the stability that comes with their parents’ union being recognized under the law? Do those children not also have rights?

      On what basis are you making the assumption that gay and lesbian parents, who must CHOOSE to bring life into the world, are worse for children than those straight couples who routinely ignore their own flesh and blood in our society?




      3



      9
      • Unison says:

        I don’t quite understand you. It seems like you are finding every opportunity to twist the meaning of words and stray away from the crucial subjects in order to advocate LGBT government control 😐

        The right I am talking about here is a child’s natural BIRTH RIGHT, children missing out on that sacred bonding process by which the government should never interfere with through redifinition of marriage.

        I am not alone on this important stance. Conservative gays, atheists, and as well, respectable thinkers who don’t hate the LGBT liberal crowd nor have phobias against them, support what I am saying.

        I am amazed that people like yourself don’t see a child’s basic need of a father and mother, which is a matter of common sense!




        6



        1
        • Thoughtsy says:

          What you see as twisting of words, I see as a flaw in the logic and incorrect assumptions underpinning your arguments.

          You argue that same-sex marriage denies children their birth right to have a mother and a father. I challenge the logic of that argument and the assumptions you make to support it.

          First off, we can see from our experience in Cayman every day with absentee parents that we do not require opposite-sex couples to maintain any sort of loving bond with their children. Accordingly, if there is a right being denied, it is already being denied to children throughout Cayman.

          Second, you make an undue assumption, Unison, that children of gay and lesbian parents are missing out paternal bonds. Quite the contrary, I propose that children of gay and lesbian couples often experience more of a sacred parental bond than children of opposite sex couples, because (unlike children of casual opposite sex encounters), children of same-sex couples are brought into this world in nearly every case through great consideration and effort. If what you are concerned about is children going unloved or without the benefit of parents, then I say to you that I see the risk of that as far higher with opposite sex couples than with same-sex ones.

          Third, you focus only on future children, and assume (on the basis of your “common sense”) that they will be worse off if they are born or raised by members of a same-sex couple than an opposite-sex couple. But if your concern is with the well being of children, and ensuring that they grow up in stable, loving homes, then I ask of you—aren’t the EXISTING children of same-sex Caymanian couples entitled to the financial, legal and familial stability that comes with their parents’ union being recognized under the law? What of their rights?




          2



          4
          • Thoughtsy says:

            **What you see as twisting of words, I see as *elucidating a flaw in the logic and incorrect assumptions underpinning your arguments.




            0



            4
    • Anonymous says:

      Unison your comments are getting so repetitive that most are just just scrolling past. Give up already. You have proved nothing and just write a whole lot of contradictory sentences. Your posts don’t coinincide with each other dude.




      1



      5
    • Jotnar says:

      How can you possibly say that as an absolute children are best raised with their biological parents. We have ample evidence in Cayman of people committing serious crimes, whose pleas in mitigation are that their father was completely absent, and their mother had multiple children from multiple fathers and no real interest in child raising. Do you seriously content that a baby removed form that environment and fostered with a loving, stable but gay couple would have a worse outcome in life?




      1



      0
  3. Putin is my hero says:

    Can any of you bigots give one good reason why gay couples shouldn’t be offered the same rights as heterosexual couples without, invoking fairy tales, gods, or your own bigoted opinions?

    Oh I thought not. Sad world we live in but, there is humour in the fools that walk amonst us.




    12



    20
    • Anonymous says:

      Sure read the comments below 🔻




      4



      5
    • Unison says:

      ANSWER: The government becoming responsible for the raising up of fatherless and motherless children!

      *And if you think that is not an important reason, hear the testimonies of so many thousands of people who wish they were in the arms of their real father or real mother. Messing around with common marriage is no joke thing. And nothing can replace the primal and sacred bond of a mother 😐

      Hence no same-sex couple should ever have the same rights as a heteriosexual couple! No government should ever interfere is what is commonly known as a marriage and a family.




      4



      3
      • Anonymous says:

        The only joke in this comment section is you “Unison” and your belief that you have some right to preach down on the actions of others, get a hobby




        4



        7
      • Thoughtsy says:

        Sorry, what evidence do you have that children of same-sex couples become wards of the state?

        Of course, no one wants children to go unloved, and I can understand where that fear might come from.

        The way I see it, though, the risk of a child being unloved is much LESS for the child of same-sex parents—who must actively choose to bring that child into the world (often through much adversity).

        I, for one, have never met a child of a same-sex couple who has wished or longed for the love of their “absent” biological parent. Those that I have had the fortune of meeting typically find a wealth and abundance of love from the same-sex parents that chose to bring them into this world.

        I think it’s worth checking your assumptions, Unison.




        2



        4
        • Citizen says:

          But you have an assumption that children in same-sex homes will be loved the way you imagined. Do you have personal proof to test your claims?




          3



          0
          • Thoughtsy says:

            Yes. My children, and the beautiful children of dozens of other loving same-sex couples I know personally, are proof positive.

            Not to mention the review of 150+ studies underpinning the conclusions reached in the article linked to by CNS above:

            https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/23/children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows

            So now that we have established personal proof, what proof do you have that they will be worse off, other than your “common sense” and what you believe to be “natural”?

            Is it possible that the assumptions you and others have made about same-sex parents are incorrect, even if they seem obvious? We once believed that the sun circled the earth, because if one looks at the sky, the sun’s direction could not be more obvious.




            1



            3
    • Just saying says:

      You sick, pitiful and wretched soul, why don’t you go live with your own kind and leave us fools who believe in fairy tales and god to live like there is a God and the holy bible is His written word.

      It is ok for the people to accept your lifestyle, forsake our beliefs, accept yours and your kind and not fight or speak out for our beliefs????

      Well, the God I believe you are referring to says “…..in the last days, men will be lovers of self…..” The day that 2 men can procreate without a women or 2 women without a man then maybe your lifestyle will be considered and even accepted.

      By the way, yes am God-fearing, I love God, I believe His word and I trust Him so before you start questioning my Christianity, hear what He said about evil, “….call evil by its name and don’t call evil good and good evil” may you find God before it’s too late.




      4



      5
      • Anonymous says:

        Hahaha! “Fools” being the key word here. This could be a response to expats, blacks, Asians, dogs, gays or anyone this “fool” doesn’t like. Classic.




        0



        1
  4. Anonymous says:

    Between supporting my gay friends or making decisions based on a “god” that had 42 kids slaughtered by bears for saying Elisha was bald, I’d go with my friends.




    14



    13
    • Just saying says:

      And that’s the same God that gave His only begotten son to suffer and die for the sins of the world. The same God that brought your poor mother through labour and delivery and gave you life. The same God that can kill you twice.

      It will come a day when, if you are lucky enough to lay on your back, you will be looking up and that is when you may realize that there is a god, if you are able to, ask Him to forgive you and save your soul. Friend, I trust you will not wait until such time, but know that God is willing and He is merciful, kind, full of love and grace and He will save your wretched soul.

      He is an awesome God and Him alone can save you. It is fine to love your gay friends but they can’t save themselves and certainly can’t save you.




      3



      4
  5. Unison says:

    @ 1:45 p.m.

    Thats the most silly reasoning Ive read from you. Diogenes, you don’t have to show a “straight” gene because all genes are self-evidently straight, the way they are suppose to be!  The onus is for you, Dio, with the new claim that there is something crooked in the human genome to prove it!

    Which Im afraid you can’t … in your own words, “there are unconfirmed links and predictions, NOT having definitive proof” … then you said, “we don’t have proof of aliens yet it is still highly likely that aliens exist” … smh …

    Dio, I thought you had issue with theists on the question of God’s existence, yet you are going to use “aliens” to justify a belief in a gay gene. Oh the irrational statements you make when you become subjective 😂 …

    I also notice you love to equate 400 years of black people history during the slave trade with your gay movement. As a black person, please desist from insulting us!  😐 We are black and hence our civil rights are not made up. Our rights are african rooted from self evident “straight” genes! Skin color is part of the human genome fully confirmed in 2003 by top scientist.

    Unison

    * waiting for your reply to accused me of homophobia, hate speech, or religious bigotry. Praying for you ☺




    23



    5
    • Anonymous says:

      “All genes are self evidently-straight.” There it is boys and girls, Professor Unison must be one of those top scientist. There is no way they could be wrong about this, no way….. /s.

      What exactly is a straight gene anyway?

      You do understand a gene is a section of DNA that controls the development of all organisms and many organisms like humans for example have different genetic structure…I hate to break it to you Unison, but most people don’t have the same “DNA”, and is a major contributor in the way we look, grow and behave and, we all look, grow and behave differently.




      7



      9
      • Tony says:

        That’s FALSE.

        DNA is NOT a major contributor in the way we behave! If that was the case, you would have people raping people everywhere. The reality is, you have power of will to control your thoughts and desires. DNA plays no role in your self-control.

        I am a violent person, so I must blame it on my DNA?! I am a person with homosexual desires and temptations, so I must blame it on my DNA ?!

        Your not making any sense!




        13



        7
        • Anonymous says:

          Tony, brain scans can now predict prisoner recidivism better than a parole officer. Much more of what we like to believe is will power is controlled by subconscious processes than is commonly thought, much more.




          6



          10
        • Putin is my hero says:

          Yea because there is no such thing as hereditary psychological disorders. I’m making perfect sense, you’re the one who is talking trash.




          4



          8
    • Anonymous says:

      (Automatic gunfire salute!)

      – Who

      😉




      12



      4
      • Anonymous says:

        Who gives away the dubious prejudices in his position on this issue by agreeing with the offensive comments by his acolyte Unison.




        5



        10
        • Anonymous says:

          Yeah yeah … whatever mate.
          Blow it out ya bootie.

          🙂

          – Who




          7



          4
          • Anonymous says:

            How base. But that is what we have come to expect in recent times from him. There was an important point being made there, namely that for all Who’s posturing on this issue about civil unions being enough and deflection towards nativism by agreeing with Unison’s offensive nonsense the truth has come out that his arguments are derived from good old fashioned prejudice of the worst type.




            0



            3
            • Diogenes says:

              Was it ever really in question? They act as if inferences can’t be made, as if people are children who can’t read between the lines and see the sources of their ideologies

              One admits it freely and the other tries to hid behind nuances while using “automatic gunfire” to drown out any opposing views and information.

              Not worth the time addressing either really, I’d have more luck teaching my dogs algebra

              Diogenes of Cayman




              2



              2
    • Anonymous says:

      I wrote a long wordy reply to you, but then I remembered you aren’t a rational human being with empathy or any ability for independent thought and I’d rather not waste my time

      Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t need you to approve of anyone’s lifestyles, rights or beliefs

      In fact, I just realized just how irrelevant you really are, you are one singular drop of water in a sea of change, and that scares you. Notice no one echoes your sentiments, yet people almost comment in opposition to you.

      Live a long happy life Unison, teach your children to hate as you do and they will be shunned in the ever changing world.

      When you die your ideas die with you, remember that.

      Our fight will persevere, it has for thousands of years. It will survive one indoctrinated bigot and his hateful twisted ideologies.
      Think of that as you fall asleep at night, remember that as much as you hate us, you’ll never bring us down to your level.

      This is probably the last time I’ll ever write comment regarding you, hope you print it out and treasure it.

      Diogenes of Cayman




      7



      12
    • Thoughtsy says:

      Is there a disabled gene?




      0



      5
    • Anonymous says:

      “Skin color is part of the human genome fully confirmed in 2003 by top scientist.” Did you need sciences to confirm that you are black so that you can claim equal rights? I don’t think you qualify to be labelled homophobic mate, etc …




      2



      7
  6. Anonymous says:

    The world is changing, except the cayman islands……good luck.




    6



    9
  7. Mr. B says:

    The “born this way” doctrine that no matter what you do, you can not change from your ways, belittles the power of free will and the plain revelation of science in finding not one chromosome that indicates a gay one. Of course, if you watch enough youtube, facebook and liberal internet sites, it seems convincing pseudoscience junk. And the born-that-way-I-can’t-help-it claim gives the gay activists the excuse to petition the government for an extra set of bill of rights on their behalf.

    But like Unison and others have indicated, in terms of rights, what about protecting the children, and the consequences of infringing upon the established human rights in existence?

    I would like to hear a response from “Colours Cayman,” how their petitions will not lead to changing our family laws and infringing upon the birth right of a child in having a mom and dad, and upon other rights like freedom of religion and freedom to speak your conscience.

    I recalled the other day watching a little debate in Australia on what clearly demonstrates how the gay activists undermines the consequences in having the government sanction same-sex marriage for all Australians. It should give Caymanians a glimpse of how far reason and commonsense will go with these groups pushing for their made up rights. Please see sample here –

    https://youtu.be/YP6knWB_z0k

    Mr. B




    16



    8
    • Thoughtsy says:

      This is fear mongering at it’s best, Mr. B.

      (1) The notion the rights derive from being “born” a certain way is ludicrous. Human rights derive from being born a human. You are not born a Christian or born with the opinions you hold, and yet you ask that we protect your freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Yet, you ask us to impose a special burden on those gay and lesbian Caymanians currently being denied the rights to which every other human in Cayman is entitled—you, for some inexplicable reason, require them, but not yourself, to demonstrate that they are “born this way” before you believe them to be entitled to equal dignity under the law.

      (2) No one is asking for an extra set of bill of rights—or for any special rights at all. The only thing being asked is that gay and lesbian Caymanians be entitled to the same right to a private and family life (a right already guaranteed by the Caymanian Constitution) as straight Caymanians, and even gay and lesbian expats in Cayman. This is a right that is already supposed to be guaranteed, but which the government currently denies to some (but not others) on the basis of an immutable trait.

      (3) The belief that children need “protecting” from gay and lesbian parents is offensive and absurd. You have no evidence that children of gay and lesbian parents become parentless wards of the state (in any greater frequency than the number of Caymanian children of opposite sex couples whose fathers and mothers have abandoned them), because no such evidence exists. And, are not the children of gay and lesbian parents (of which there are many in Cayman) entitled to the stability that comes with their parents’ union and their families being recognized under the law?

      (4) No one is asking that you be prohibited from practicing your faith. But, your right to practice your faith derives from the same right that allows me to live free from it. I, for one, was formerly a member of a Christian congregation that acknowledged same-sex marriage when I lived abroad, and yet my congregation could not solemnize that union in Cayman. So I think you must admit that what you really mean by “freedom of religion” is the freedom to practice the one faith of the majority—which is no freedom at all.

      (5) No one is asking that your freedom of speech be curtailed. While you should be morally compelled to treat everyone with dignity and respect (regardless of whether you agree with them), you are free to believe what you’d like to believe. But if exercising your “freedom of speech” means you’d like to be permitted not to serve certain people in places of public accommodation on the basis of their gender, their skin color, their nationality, their disability, their sexuality or any other immutable trait, then (in my view) you have no place in civilized society—even if I would nevertheless defend your right to hold those bigoted views.




      1



      5
  8. West bay Premier says:

    All this exposure is turning me the other way too . I am going to have to come out of my shell and confess to my true identity .




    3



    3
  9. Anonymous says:

    If the rest of us have to get married I don’t see why they shouldn’t too. In all seriousness if two other people’s happiness upsets you, you need to have a word with yourself.




    15



    7
  10. Red Ranger says:

    Since we’re doing favorite posts, my favorite are the ones demanding evidence for being born gay, but at the same time will take faith over evidence for believing in their sky daddy.




    14



    7
    • Anonymous says:

      You are making an unrelated comparison and it seems all you can offer is insults to believers of a faith which by definition does not have evidence and the very reason why it is called faith. The least you could do is refer to God as God. The vast majority of Christians have no qualm with gays, but simply beleive the institution of marriage is between and man and a woman. The argument of proving God exists is equal to the argument of proving he does not exist, therefore it serves no purpose to offer it as a cogent argument.




      6



      6
    • patrick says:

      Sky daddy is not going to the EU and seeking to legislate laws on us! Give me Sky daddy any time.




      10



      5
      • Anonymous says:

        No your sky daddy just gave his laws to some ancient barbarians to rape and murder indiscriminately them sacrifice his son so you can sin freely and repent whenever you feel guilty enough.




        2



        7
  11. Unison says:

    A Human Right must be proven scientifically. So you can’t force “gay rights” on everyone when it is not proven for everyone. That would amount to a totalitarian rule that is designed to specifically recruit our children 😐




    31



    24
    • Diogenes says:

      “to recruit our children”

      The only thing anyone should be worried about is letting mentally unstable persons such as yourself around children.

      You act as if before gay rights there were no gay people, people are realizing it’s ok to be themselves and that is what really scares you unison

      Diogenes




      11



      17
    • Anonymous says:

      What rubbish,

      How does one scientifically prove Freedom of Religious Conscience? How does a scientist measure The Right to Public Assembly? By this logic we cannot enjoy The Right to Education if such a concept cannot be proven?

      LGBT people have a right to Marriage and Family. As the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes, every grown-up has the right to marry and have a family if they want to. Men and women have the same rights when they are married, and when they are separated.




      7



      13
    • Anonymous says:

      Were these words generated by a random process?




      2



      6
    • Charles Darwin says:

      No one is forcing you to change your sexual identity though, the only thing that gets hurt here are religious people’s feelings because the more people that share their beliefs, the more self-confirmed they feel with blind faith.

      You’re acting like just because you don’t like fried food, no one should be allowed to go to KFC. Simply picking and choosing what you want to follow out of an obsolete book.

      Sit down for a second and realize how ridiculous you’re acting. It’s 2017, no one is getting hurt here, some people just want equal rights.

      Didn’t we go through foolishness like this less than an century ago with blacks and whites? Can we PLEASE not go back there? Peace and love.




      7



      11
      • Unison says:

        Im trying to turn KFC into a government entity. Keep it privatized. You want your chicken? Go get it!




        5



        0
    • Anonymous says:

      They aren’t being forced on anyone. The rights are for ‘humans’ (clue’s in the title) you have them already – why do you insist on denying them to others because of who they love?




      9



      6
    • Anonymous says:

      Utter drivel. How do you imagine a moral principle can be proven scientifically?




      1



      4
    • Thoughtsy says:

      Sorry, which human rights have been “proven scientifically”? Also, is there a distinction, in your view, between “gay rights” and “human rights”? The way I see it, it is precisely because the universal “human rights” of the right to marry and the right to form a family are being denied to gay and lesbian Caymanians that we must have this conversation in the first place…

      For a nice list, see http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/




      6



      6
      • Unison says:

        Thoughtsy, the difference is same-sex socalled rights are subjective; nothing objectively evident about them at all. Just like an intoxicated driver my subjectively or personally say its his “right” to drink and drive. And as a police officer, you would never acknowledge and give that drive his right.

        The UN has officially adopted LGBT rights, pertaining to discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Nothing about it must be recognized globally. And lets say they did declare SSM is a right, then kindly, I would have to disagree with the UN. The Order of Nature is higher than the UN.




        8



        2
        • Thoughtsy says:

          The point is there is no such thing as “same-sex rights.” They are either human rights—applicable to all humans, gay or straight—or they’re not. So what you must be claiming is that there is no right for anyone to be married at all, in which case you wouldn’t mind if the government prohibited you from marrying either.




          1



          4
          • Unison says:

            No.

            The LGBT falsely claims, same-sex marriage is a right; or else they wouldn’t be fighting for government’s validation.

            I notice you like to twist the meaning of terms, Thoughtsy

            Cunning 😐




            3



            0
            • Thoughtsy says:

              Gay and lesbian people claim that every human has a right to a private and family life. The European Court of Human Rights has held that right to include the right to the recognition of domestic unions under the law. There currently exists such recognition for opposite sex couples in Cayman, as well as for same-sex expat couples (at least for immigration purposes) in Cayman, but not for same-sex Caymanian couples.

              Tell me again how you see that as a “special right” that should be denied to Caymanian gay and lesbian couples but to no one else?




              0



              2
        • Anonymous says:

          Basic breakdown of “Unison”:

          *agrees with affirmative information and ideas, by definition, no matter the legitimacy, validity or lack thereof *

          *discounts or disregards any contradicting evidence, accounts or information even when they have no experience in the matter*

          * Never provide evidence to back up the more ridiculous claims he makes especially when caught in lies and misinformation, such as this thread*

          *Make up definitions on a whim to suit his needs ( I.E. “A Human Right must be proven scientifically”) such as this thread again*

          Somehow a straight man claim to know more about gay people than gay people do, interesting. “Don’t believe your lying eyes listen to what I tell you because I am right” and they by definition are wrong.
          Act as if he has some sort of moral high ground to stand on, while clearly being deranged and lacking the mental capacity to think for himself. While clearly displaying the most basic form of confirmation bias “I agree with what some HR courts and the UN says now but if they change their rulings then I reserve the right to revoke the validity and rationale of their conclusion, because by definition I am right and they are only right when they agree with me” and “Can’t point out the straight gene but claims that there is no gay gene” which makes no sense if all genes are “100% straight” then how are gay persons even a thing, guess this is where he says “it’s a choice”. Can’t show the attack on family life or the danger regarding to children but still claims it exists. If you think that seeing gay people will turn kids gay, then by that rationale there wouldn’t be any gay people cause the vast majority of persons are straight and that is the most common relationship seen by persons and kids. I would love to see what would happen if scientists took 100 families and isolated them from the rest of society while their kids were toddlers, with strict instructions to never mention or display homosexuality. I guarantee some of those kids would grow up to be gay even without being “influenced by gay persons”.
          People of the Cayman Islands and the world at large, when do you recall choosing your sexuality whether heterosexual, homosexual or anything in between? I for one have no such memory and made no conscious decision. I have never understood how that is somehow a valid argument, are we meant to believe that persons decide one day they want to take the hard path in life, being looked down upon and treated differently for who they love?

          Take a second and honestly answer that, then you will see that you had no choice like they had no choice. No one is demanding you accept homosexuality, no one is demanding you take part in homosexuality or homosexual unions. All they ask is to be treated like everyone else in accordance to the laws of the land.
          Truly a shameful display for Cayman, people talk about crime scaring away the tourists, if North Carolina is any indication to the results of public and open discrimination and bigotry then this could very well end our tourism industry if anyone decided to highlight it to the world.
          Stand up for the rights of others even if you don’t believe it is right or “holy” God tells us to ‘Love our neighbors as ourselves” and that we are not put on earth to judge others. We meet them with closed fists and hatred and then expect them to embrace the goodness of our God and our beliefs. We are the church and truly we must do better to represent our loving God, he who accepts all who believe in Him regardless of their flaws, for we all fall short of God’s purity and his example through his Son.

          Finally, Unison, don’t use our loving religion to push your divisive opinions, lest you be judged yourself for your many flaws and shortcomings.
          I am sorry for those who are victimized by persons in our community and religion, remember they do not represent us all and they do not speak for us
          May there be peace on Earth as there is in Heaven, according to God’s divine will.




          2



          3
    • Anonymous says:

      Unison are you really that cognitively challenged? If you are not gay how are gay rights being “forced” on you? Do you believe in equality of races/sexes? Do you believe that black people should have the same rights as white people? Women the same as men? I assume you do. If you are black does that make you white? If you are white does it make you black? If you are a man does it make you a woman? No because you are what you are. So tell me how is accepting gay rights which is nothing more than equality for all going to make you gay? If your are children are not gay then do you really believe they can be recruited to be gay? And if they are gay then what? You would really deny them the right to feel equal to you or anyone else in their own country? Why the hell should we force our kids to leave their own country to find a place to live and be who they were born to be. To love who they were born to love? We all have LGBTQIXYZ in our families. NONE are exempt! Are you not sick and tired of going against the words of Jesus to love all??!! Think of the pain you may be causing people that you love. STOP THE DAMN HATE! STOP THE DAMN BIGOTRY!




      10



      10
      • Unison says:

        One word: We all are born in a world of sin. We all have desires. But you are not determined by your desires. You like the many others who are gay, have the power in you to change. There is no scientific proof of gay people genetically determined; hence, gay rights from a moral subjective base.




        7



        3
        • Thoughtsy says:

          Your nationality is not genetically determined. Your disability status is not genetically determined. Your religion is not genetically determined.

          So by your logic, I take it you would agree that the religious have no right to practice their faith, since religion is not genetically determined?




          1



          6
          • Unison says:

            Yet Thoughtsy, do you see a religious group making appeals to our government to enforce a recognition of their faith on everyone? No you do not 🤔

            Think.




            3



            0
            • Anonymous says:

              You seem to be confused or lacking mental capacity or maybe a little bit of both, no one is forcing you to be gay, no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage, do you use your brain at all




              2



              3
            • Thoughtsy says:

              Unison, do you not remember, for example, the anti-gay church rally that was held just over a year ago to oppose exactly the recognition of same-sex unions that this petition calls for? Do you not read the dozens of faith-based comments that you and others have made in this thread alone?

              If you resist equality under the law on the basis of your faith, then you are asking our government to craft laws on the basis of that faith. If the government crafts laws on the basis of one faith, then you impose that faith on everyone who does not believe it.

              Your right to freedom of religion includes my right to be free from the imposition of your faith upon me.

              Think.




              2



              3
              • Unison says:

                Im not a church attendee, thank you. Nice try with the faith base sidetrack.

                This society as well need to be free and protect from the impositions of your same-sex rights upon everyone, which there can never be compared with tradtional marriage




                1



                1
                • Thoughtsy says:

                  Unison, you don’t have to attend Church to impose your faith on others. I believe it was you who warned:

                  “Finally, I can only see the fulfillment of the words of Jesus when he said, as in the days of the Noah (referring to the rainbow) so shall it be at the end of days. And again Jesus said as it was in the days of Lot (Sodom and Gomorrah) so shall it be just before the coming of the Son of Man. As a deist how can I close my eyes to this prophetic utterance from a moral teacher with over a billion adherants? How can I disregard the words, if any man seeks for the kingdom of G-d, “he must deny self, pick up his cross, and follow me” 🤔”

                  Tell us again how your reasoning, and the reasoning of others here, is not at least in part based on your faith?




                  1



                  2
        • Anonymous says:

          There you go assuming that anyone that argues against your brand of poison has to be gay! Sorry to disappoint you. I am straight. On the basis that the most vitriolic homophobes are self loathing people, I may be more straight than you. Don’t worry if that is the case, there is likely at least one or maybe two politicians who can keep you company until you accept it. Maybe together you can find the power to love yourselves.




          1



          3
      • Anonymous says:

        Thank you, and to reiterate and support your point, my partner is leaving Cayman( HER HOMELAND) to be with me elsewhere in my country of origin because of how bigoted and hateful the Caymanians are about her sexual orientation. She just wants to be.




        3



        6
    • Anonymous says:

      Human rights has to be proved scientfically, but proof in God isn’t needed and God’s law comes first.

      The mind of a delusional human being.




      4



      3
  12. Anonymous says:

    to the religious – i can’t wait for your God to show up and remind you of how much you tortured others in His name.




    13



    13
  13. Red Ranger says:

    The thumbnail says it all.




    2



    0
  14. Anonymous says:

    huh? i need a drink ….😐




    1



    1
  15. Anonymous says:

    They want this dealt with during Brexit negotiations. I’m not sure which aspect of that idea is more ridiculous.




    7



    0
  16. Unison says:

    @10:11

    You really thirst to see Cayman under your tyranny!

    QUESTION:

    Should the entire population be subjected to a few persons with no scientific evidence whatsoever that they are born gay?!

    Hence deserving no rights other than the rights they already have! 🤔




    23



    13
    • Anonymous says:

      No gay person is forcing any straight person to engage in a gay marriage, or any gay act (if they are that is sexual assault or rape and is illegal irrespective of sexual orientation)

      They want the same rights as everyone else, you twist the arguments and fill them with lies like this just so you can sleep at night.

      Because somehow the straight majority is the victim, I guess it’s like how white people are the victims when black people force Black History month on them? (yes people actually think that)




      8



      9
      • Unison says:

        Try to understand, it is in government’s best interest to acknowledge traditional married couples for the sole reason that they can contribute to the country in ways that same-sex couples can not – like children and stable homes 🤔

        Now … if a same-sex couple can never contribute these things, why does government need to get involved ???

        You are free to sleep at night with your lover. Just don’t involved the entire nation.




        8



        3
        • Fred the Piemaker says:

          Yeah, same sex couples can never have a stable home or be capable of looking after children, because we all know they are promiscuous and child molesters. Whereas all those gang bangers with multiple baby mama’s and neglected kids are a positive contribution to society.

          You think you are honest and decent individual, but you will happily ascribe all sorts of anti social behaviours to a group of people based simply on their sexual orientation. You claim to be a Christian, but the virtues of love and tolerance in that religion are completely displaced in you by you intolerance for a specific group in society. You can try and justify it on social engineering grounds if you like (seem to remember the Nazis were pretty keen on that line of argument as well – Jews, the handicapped, Gypsies are all contrary to the creation of a strong society – but you are basically a bigot.




          3



          5
          • Diogenes says:

            @Fred the Piemaker

            Point after point of valid rebuttals that will go ignored by our challenged friend

            Glad to see rationality still exists on these beloved isles.

            Diogenes of Cayman




            2



            3
    • Anonymous says:

      Answer:
      1. Learn English so we can understand what you’re ranting about.
      2. Its about equal rights for everyone. Gay people aren’t asking for anything special – they just want what you already have (and they are currently denied).




      9



      4
    • Anonymous says:

      In what way would you be subjected. If the law is changed it won’t mean you have to go and marry someone of the same sex.

      It makes no difference to you except to the extent you wish to interfere in someone else’s personal life.




      8



      3
      • Anonymous says:

        He claims to be a libertarian yet fully backs the state restricting the rights of others, completely disregarding their liberty and political and legal freedoms.
        Hypocrisy at it’s purest and most refined form
        Anyone who takes him seriously is lost, hopefully natural selection can kick in and correct for his lack of intelligence




        1



        2
    • Thoughtsy says:

      Regardless of whether a person is born gay, there is plenty of scientific evidence that the trait is immutable. No one is born elderly, or disabled, and yet we allow the elderly and disabled equal dignity under our laws, do we not?




      4



      7
    • Anonymous says:

      I never had to prove my heterosexuality. I never had to conceal it either. My sexuality has been a non event, a private matter in pretty much every aspect of my life. The reality is, I cant prove I am not faking heterosexuality. So, how do we set such a ridiculous bar for homosexuality? I don’t think homosexuality feels different than heterosexuality. The same stirrings and feelings and attractions I felt during adolescence towards the opposite sex I would imagine happen the same way for homosexuals….organically. The same love, lust, caring and trust I feel toward my male partner I assume is the same as homosexuals feel for each other. Not every homosexual made a choice or was raped or abused. It just happens the same way I just so happen to be heterosexual. Why that explanation is such an affront to people seems absurd to me. If you believe it is a sin then let your God judge them accordingly so you don’t have to. If you believe in the afterlife and hell then let them meet their fate accordingly. Focus on your own soul. All people are asking for is the right to do the same things we take for granted every day like marry (although that’s overrated lol), create homes together, have dependants on health insurance or work permits, be beneficiaries of an estate, just do normal things. To create a separation is to class some humans as more deserving based on sexuality which cannot be controlled in the womb or whenever sexuality is determined. No one is subjecting our population to anything, this wont hurt your job or your trip to the supermarket or your right to vacation. Its just giving homosexuals the same life you have.




      11



      3
      • Unison says:

        Your emotions speak loudly, but it blinds you:

        You stated, “All people are asking for is the right to … create homes together, have dependants on health insurance or work permits, be beneficiaries of an estate, just do normal things”

        By “dependants” Im assuming you mean an adult lover. If so, do you have to redefine marriage and include government in our bedrooms in order to get the benefits you just listed?

        I think not




        4



        2
        • Anonymous says:

          Redefining marriage would have literally 0 effects on you, please name all the ways that it would harm you without being “emotional” or relying on your random morals that all other persons must abide by according to you and your divine mandate and please don’t forget to tell us how much it will harm the kids who literally don’t care about who loves who.




          0



          4
    • Beaumont Zodecloun says:

      what we should ALL strive for is equal rights for everyone, regardless of the variables that make up their physiology or preferences. All anyone wants is the same rights afforded others, nothing more nor less. I can’t for the life of me figure out why this isn’t DEMANDED by each and every Caymanian voter.

      I surely don’t wish for anyone to have less rights than those afforded me and my family.

      If you wish to question the notion of nurture vs. nature, consider this: Think back toward the time where you first discovered your sexual orientation. Did you ponder the pros and cons of each, or did you just know? I knew when at six or seven I looked up at the female lifeguard sitting on her tower and I knew there was something there I was interested in and wanted.

      You are wrong about the scientific evidence. There is a great deal of evidence that people are mostly born with their preferences; additionally, there is a plethora of evidence of homosexuality in nature.




      8



      4
    • Anonymous says:

      Since when is scientific evidence of sexual orientation required to be respected and treated fairly in a society? I don’t need to prove to anybody that I’m simply not happy with a man, as a female. My own personal happiness is scientific in the physiology of the human mind and emotion itself. If you aren’t gay, then try and relate this by attempting to scientifically prove to me that you are straight. I’d like to see how this works out for a claimed heterosexual. I may not believe that you are straight, but if you can prove it scientifically I’ll treat you with much more respect and equality 😉




      2



      4
  17. Anonymous says:

    I do remember that the CNS commenters book of made-up laws refers to an exception to rights obligations that suit the status quo. I think it is called the “place that likes to discriminate and act like bigots” exception.




    9



    14
  18. Anonymous says:

    The Cayman Islands have a civil obligation to create a framework for the recognition and defense of same-sex civil unions. It is not a human right. It is a civil obligation that this regime is willingly in contravention of by not recognizing an union by one of its citizens. For added clarity, the LGBT community has not made any approach for gay marriages to be consecrated at Cayman alters by closed minded right-wing congregations; and frankly, for those worried unnecessarily, it’s doubtful that is something of interest.




    18



    13
  19. Anonymous says:

    My favourite, and not only on this thread, are the ones who constantly say, “I am not homophobic but…”, “I am not racist but…” , “I love gay people but…” It’s hilarious and if you have to start off by saying that to make your racist, homophobic bullshit sound like you are not racist or homophobic, actually just proves you are racist and homophobic!! lol! Idiots!




    22



    20
  20. Anonymous says:

    My question is simple. If Caymanians should not feel “entitled” living in Cayman, why does the foriegn LGBT community feel they are “entitled” to change our laws? The rights that they are fighting for is available in their countries. So please feel entitled to leave by the fastest means to go back to your entitled countries.




    33



    34
    • Anonymous says:

      It was a Caymanian that was refused the recognition of his partner. Should Caymanians have to leave and go somewhere else to satisfy you? Who are you to hold that view?




      35



      13
    • Fred the Piemaker says:

      You understand that this involves defending the rights of a gay Caymanian, right, who cannot “go back to his entitled countries”. And the activist behind Colours Cayman is a Caymanian?




      36



      12
    • Diogenes says:

      The Foreign LGBT community, is speaking for some of the many gay Caymanians who are too scared to speak up themselves, due to the lack of legal protection and the social stigma on the islands

      Diogenes




      20



      15
      • Amazing says:

        Oh please!

        I guess your suffrance was on the front page. Certainly not Cayman 😂




        16



        6
        • Diogenes says:

          Whatever helps you sleep at night, you see the reaction whenever articles like this are written and when it is brought up in the LA and continue to act like it isn’t a big deal to the bigots.

          Equal treatment, that is all

          Diogenes




          6



          10
    • Anonymous says:

      My partner is Caymanian, born and raised. As for her rights in her own country? She’s not foreign to Cayman… a country that has a serious issue with homosexuality, as proven by your statement




      1



      2
  21. Anonymous says:

    YAY Colours Cayman! Keep up the excellent work. Rooting for you all the way!

    Listen, for those who may be at all concerned about this, there is not one place in the New Testament that condemns LGBT persons. That’s a sad, sorry man-made excuse. God made you and loves you. And so do I! 🙂

    Keep up the great work!!!!




    36



    22
    • Unison says:

      If Colours Cayman are for fighting against discrimination, hate, and violence towards the person of a LGBT and Q, I can see myself supporting their cause.

      However, they want to do more – it seems like Colours Cayman want the powers-that-be to enforce socalled “rights” on these islands. And when they are successful at the Immigration level, they will go for redefining marriage and child custody. And that means same-sex taught in schools, our legal documents like passports and birth citificates changed to include their wordings, children not guaranteed a biological mother and father and perhaps put up for adoption with a same-sex couple that are men, a whole can of worms that could cost Cayman.

      Also, the government punishing citizens, censoring free speech with socalled anti-discrimination measures. Not good for Cayman Islands! And marriage is cheapened! The rights of parents and children ignored!




      8



      2
      • Thoughtsy says:

        Colours Cayman IS fighting against discrimination, including this legal discrimination.

        Legal discrimination occurs when fundamental rights are afforded to one group of citizens, but denied to another group of citizens, based on an immutable characteristic.

        There is arguably nothing more fundamental than the right to a private life, the right to form a family, and the right to bear the benefits and burdens that come with having your commitment to the person you love recognized under the law.

        Those are the rights that are afforded to heterosexual Caymanians, but denied to gay and lesbian Caymanians. Those rights are denied on the basis of the immutable characteristic of gay and lesbian Caymanians’ sexual orientation. That is the legal discrimination that occurs, and that this petition appears to be designed to address.

        While I understand the goal of holding on to one’s values, I must admit I have a hard time understanding how remedying this legal discrimination impacts those values in this case.

        The way I see it, recognizing same-sex marriages under the law doesn’t worsen or diminish opposite sex marriages, nor does it force anyone to believe differently than they do today. You can continue to believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, if you so choose, without asking us to turn our backs on our gay and lesbian Caymanian brothers and sisters—forcing them to flee our country, simply so that they may share their lives with the person they love.




        1



        3
        • Unison says:

          Thoughtsy, the “right to bear the benefits and burdens that come with having your commitment to the person you love recognized under the law” MUST NOT infringed on others rights – like the right of a child to have a real mom and dad to hold and cherish, and the right of parents to not have sex, same-sex or transgender education taught to their children at primary school levels.

          Thoughtsy, you fail to realize by law that if a natural right conflicts with another natural right, it annuls the first right! If my right to life causes you harm, should my right be allowed by the government?

          Of course not.

          You and your colours group are thinking only about yourselves, and forgetting about children in this mix! 😑




          4



          1
          • Thoughtsy says:

            Your harms are purely speculative, and not supported by ANY facts.

            The harms done to gay and lesbian couples, on the other hand, are real and concrete.

            You cannot just make something up and use it to form the basis of your argument, Donald…




            1



            2
            • Unison says:

              smh ..

              A birth right is not speculative, and common sense tells you that if you sever a relationship (in any way) between a child and his mom, that is harm to the most needed bonding process!




              1



              2
              • Thoughtsy says:

                How is it, exactly, that the child of a lesbian couple is deprived of the benefit of bonding with its mother?




                1



                1
      • Anonymous says:

        I seem to recall something along the lines of an empty barrel making the most noise, looks like someone left their empty barrel in the comment section again, hopefully the CIG fines them for leaving their trash out in public littering has really become an epidemic




        0



        2
      • Anonymous says:

        Absolutely yes to your every point, minus the inference of pedophilia.

        Also, don’t you think marriage is already cheapened in Cayman? When is the last time you heard of a Caymanian man who is faithful to his wife? That mystical creature is as rare as the unicorn! And the rights of children already went out the window long time ago when these same men decided it was okay to impregnate 10 women at a time without providing any support. And then, woman in Cayman are not legally allowed to abort and are shamed into not using contraception because again, religion says no. How do you figure all this works out?

        Give me a same-sex couple who genuinely loves and can raise a child any day.

        Come on Cayman, let’s quit with the denial on this issue.




        1



        2
  22. Anonymous says:

    Tell me again exacrly how other consumung canabis effects you? Same arguement as the gay marriage…guess you have to pay to play or have large connections!




    8



    7
    • Anonymous says:

      True that your self-inflicted brain and lung damage does not need to affect anyone else. However, high-driving, above 5mcg/l THC, impairs decision making and reaction time and can irreversibly impact other road users, pedestrians, cyclists and pets. Especially when synergized with alcohol consumption. It’s always safer to drive when not stoned or impaired in any way.




      7



      3
    • Unison says:

      It effects you when the LGBTQ religion joins with the state in enforcing a morality on everyone else! 😐




      13



      9
      • Diogenes says:

        Is straight a religion Unison?

        How stupid can you get?

        Diogenes




        5



        8
      • Anonymous says:

        Said without a hint of irony. What do you think is happening right now in Cayman?




        3



        1
      • Thoughtsy says:

        No one is asking you to believe differently than you currently do. All that gay and lesbian Caymanians are asking is that they be treated equally under Caymanian law.




        7



        5
      • Beaumont Zodecloun says:

        They are not a religion, but a group of people. I am not LGBT, but I stand with them, because I support equal rights for everyone.

        Nobody is asking you to accept a morality that you disdain. Nobody gives a shit about your moral compass, nor mine. You are being asked to do the right thing — to support equal human rights for everyone.

        Simple as that.




        9



        7
  23. Anonymous says:

    if cayman is so proud of its religious beliefs why did you legalize homosexuality???????




    3



    14
    • Fred the Piemaker says:

      To be fair they didn’t. The Governor tore up the old legislation when the LA refused to do so.




      14



      1
  24. Anonymous says:

    That piece of paper still won’t ascend the union of 2 men to that of me (man) and my woman…in terms of automatic alignment with the basics of nature and the essence of life…and you know it.

    What then?
    Will people take mother nature to court because she discriminates against them and their feelings are hurt?




    12



    14
    • Anonymous says:

      Congrats 9.30, the singularly most dumb comment I have read today




      16



      7
    • Thoughtsy says:

      If that piece of paper won’t ascend to that of you and your woman, then I suppose you have nothing to fear by permitting it, as it clearly doesn’t affect you or diminish what you have in any way.




      2



      5
    • Anonymous says:

      By that rationale the millions of infertile or incapable women in the world, should be unable to marry because they cannot produce children?

      Is the fertility test before or after the vows?




      2



      0
  25. Unison says:

    As a libertarian, I can never fathom why government should ever get involved in what happens in the bed room? But I do understand why it is in government’s interest to get involved in traditional marriage: the children have rights too! As for same-sex marriage, why should it be legally recognized, and demanded on everybody to recognize it? I can only see the persecution of people of faith – including my faith christian deism! I can only see the disregard of a child’s rights to a biological father and mother! An enforced educational curriculum against parents rights! Gender confusion in scools tolerated. The changing of all our family and marriage laws, the bedrock of our society! Etc … all in the name of socalled “love, equality, and gay rights”! Moreover, I can only see the infringement of free speech in the Cayman Islands, and you being called a bigot, homophobic person, or hater if you can’t accept a sexual behavior as a genetic determinism, and that must mean accepting rights that are not real natural rights!

    Finally, I can only see the fulfillment of the words of Jesus when he said, as in the days of the Noah (referring to the rainbow) so shall it be at the end of days. And again Jesus said as it was in the days of Lot (Sodom and Gomorrah) so shall it be just before the coming of the Son of Man. As a deist how can I close my eyes to this prophetic utterance from a moral teacher with over a billion adherants? How can I disregard the words, if any man seeks for the kingdom of G-d, “he must deny self, pick up his cross, and follow me” 🤔

    It is not that I have a homophobia against gay persons. What many liberal people fail to realize is that my phobias stem from the results of sin, sin that can morally harm our children! And in making the government interfere in what is our traditional marriage, the bedrock of our society! Moreover cheapen it to other degrading forms of unions to be called marriage! They say its all about civil rights, which are not based on immutable factors – “how dare you compare your sin with the color of my skin!” It must be our children or future generation. Thats who they are after because they can’t reproduce, so they need government to recruit! It really looks like that. An “agenda” – they dont like the word. Yet we are called homophobic and religious bigot. Many others will be muzzled after me for hate speech during this sex revolution and the eventual take over of our government by their policies 🤔




    27



    24
    • Anonymous says:

      Nope, you are clearly homophobic and you and your views are harming your children just fine with your nonsense. And let’s face it, there are plenty of children who don’t know their biological parents and are better off. You should want a loving couple to adopt a child in need. If a child wants to know who gave them up or who they were taken away from when they are grown, they can find out easily. Just because a man and a woman have kids together, doesn’t automatically make them good parents. It’s a childs right to be parented, and be in a loving home. Look around you…. Too many children growing up with dead beat parents.




      20



      22
    • Anonymous says:

      Muslims, Jews etc don’t think that anything other than their religion counts, making you irrelevant…in short everyone in the world can spout from some book written by men, and not by their God. Men are weak and fail us most of the time. I would never entrust my faith blindly to such a book, much less pick quotes that suit your argument, when there are hundreds more in the same book that counter it…get it yet? A control mechanism for the weak minded.




      13



      13
      • Unison says:

        Save your atheism for another topic. There are many atheist libertarians. Ask yourself – Why are you on the side of government control?!




        16



        3
    • Anonymous says:

      How dumb can you get?




      0



      2
    • Thoughtsy says:

      On what basis do you make the determination that loving gay and lesbian parents are bad for children?




      3



      8
      • Unison says:

        Don’t even ask me for the proof that most children develop best when raised by their biological father and mother? It is so obvious – by making SSM into law, you have created a vacuum whereby many children will be left out from having this sacred parental bond.

        Thoughtsy, I know of no child that doesn’t cry for their mom and seek to be in their arms. Why would you by law subject little children to live in a house with two grown men?! Do you see how cold and indifferent that is to an innocent child?! Were you not a child?! 😑

        Please keep government out of the bedroom and out of marriage! If you can’t agree with the Church, at
        least have a selfless heart 😤




        8



        1
        • Thoughtsy says:

          Unison, I fear you’re making a number of assumptions and yet you believe them to be facts. I would encourage you to look at each statement you make and consider whether it is borne out by studies and data, or just opinions you have heard and may share yourself.




          0



          5
          • Unison says:

            It is on you to prove to us that these things will not happen, since you are pushing for this government control.

            What I am explaining is logical and factual 😐

            Prove me wrong




            3



            1
            • Thoughtsy says:

              Each and every child of a loving gay or lesbian couple proves you wrong on each and every single day.




              1



              2
        • Anonymous says:

          We can’t ask you for proof because you don’t have any? “It’s obvious” is just your close minded opinion.




          1



          3
  26. Anonymous says:

    He’s how your gay marriage affect me.

    When you are done passing your policies and making homosexual marriages legal, next you will push that churches must recognize gay marriages since they are now *legal* otherwise you will sue the churches or anyones that disagrees with you for that matter, for discrimination, since it would then be legal, and there would be an actual legal case to do so. Just like was done with the baker in New York that was sued for refusing to bake a gay cake.

    So the real agenda here has nothing to do with equal rights, it has to with YOU forcing your gay marriages on the rest of us and the eyes of the church as morally equivalent. This is why the LGBT community was never satisfied with “civil unions” and keeps pushing for “marriage”. This has nothing to do with benefits all to do with shaving your world view on the rest of us.

    Get this through your heads, gay marriages will NEVER be moral according to the church. If any church ever accepts gay marriages, you can bet it has been corrupted.




    16



    29
    • Anonymous says:

      Generously, a few hundred thousand peripheral, right-wing, pentacostal fundamentalist Christians, disproportionately situated in Middle America and the tropical third world, are the only self-identifying Christians remaining on the planet of Billions that still fail to recognize the inclusive ideals of our times, and the fallacies of the past. Clearly, nobody identifying with the merit of LGBT human and civil right discrimination has interest in joining your flock! Feel free to cross that off your worry list with 100% confidence.




      13



      9
      • Anonymous says:

        Besides the religious bashing, science and common sense proves your gay religion wrong. But nice try though ☺




        14



        5
    • Fred the Piemaker says:

      What is a gay cake?




      6



      0
    • Diogenes says:

      You really think that people give a damn what the church thinks is moral, the church sat by and watched all the incest take place on this island, the church (or multiple separate churches) allowed slavery and used religion as justification for wars and conquests throughout all of history, making a conscious decision to harm another person(self defense not withstanding) is the exact opposite of morality.

      To be frank if the church is your foundation of morality then you don’t have a moral leg to stand on.

      Diogene




      3



      5
    • Thoughtsy says:

      Literally in NONE of the dozens of countries that recognize same sex marriages have churches been forced — or even asked — to recognize them. This is little more than fear mongering.

      And the baker case is a different matter — in the same way that businesses cannot refuse to serve black people in the US, so too should they be prohibited from refusing to serve gay people.




      2



      6
    • Diogenes says:

      When have courts ever been wrong in the past right?

      You wanna try that one again?

      Am I 3/5 of a person because I’m black?

      Diogenes




      3



      11
  27. Anonymous says:

    *EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT*

    *Judgment of the Human Rights Court of Strasbourg -France*

    *Unanimously, the World Court of Human Rights has established, verbatim, that “there is no right to homosexual marriage.” The 47 judges of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, which are members of the full Court of Strasbourg (the world’s most important human rights court), issued a statement of great relevance that has been surprisingly silenced by information progressivism and its area of ​​influence. In fact, unanimously, the 47 judges approved the ruling that “there is no right to homosexual marriage.” The sentence was based on a myriad of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law.Within the latter, in particular, the judgment was based on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is equivalent to the articles of human rights treaties, as in the case of 17 of the Pact of San José and nº 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this historic but not disclosed, Resolution, the Court decided that the concept of family not only contemplates “the traditional concept of marriage, that is, the union of a man and a woman”, but also that they should not be imposed on governments to “obligation to open marriage to persons of the same sex”. As for the principle of non-discrimination, the Court also added that there is no discrimination, since “States are free to reserve marriage only to heterosexual couples.”*

    It is important and absolutely necessary to spread this kind of news because governments and sympathizers of such lobbies will not want people to know. Help spread if you want! Obviously, it does not interest the media to publicize this news.




    18



    3
    • Diogenes says:

      Courts have made bad rulings in the past, continue to do so now, and will do so in the future

      In the past black people weren’t considered a full person or citizen in the eyes of the courts of the US, should we just believe what they say because they made a ruling?4

      Do I need a court to tell me that I am human? Do I need a court’s permission to be human?
      Courts interpret the laws as they are written, they don’t always end up with the right conclusion because the laws are written poorly or in this case written to exclude persons

      Today its the LGBT community in the past it was blacks, deny it if you want, makes no difference

      Equality will prevail

      Diogenes




      7



      16
    • Unison says:

      Yep … thank you. CNS please note – I would like for “Diogenes” to post his scientific findings again of how gay people are born that way. I believe he did so on the previous subject matter. And on how this assumed immutability warrants them to have “rights” to be enforced on everyone.

      Unison
      * Accused of homophobia




      15



      4
      • Al Catraz says:

        At what age did you decide to be heterosexual?

        Or are you suggesting you were born that way? If so, what is the scientific evidence you were born heterosexual?




        4



        10
        • Unison says:

          Al, human chromosome is self-evident – XX and XY … look it up in your science textbook. The sex organs of the male and female are logically designed for the continuation of the human species. Evolution dictates that everybody must be born a heteriosexual. If there was ever a homosexual gene ingrained in humanity, logically the evolutionary process will whip it away 🤔

          Now the onus is on you as the claimant to prove that there is a gay gene! Do you have a university science book that tells you that?

          Please let us know where “gay rights” stem from?




          5



          0
          • Thoughtsy says:

            More false assumptions. Homosexuality has been observed in **1500** animal species and is thought very much to serve an evolutionary purpose. You might read more on the subject, Unison.




            0



            5
          • Thoughtsy says:

            And, yet again, there is no such thing as “gay rights.” The “gay rights” being asked for here are the human rights to a private life and a family life. They extend to gay people because, it might surprise you to learn, gay people are humans too.




            0



            4
            • Unison says:

              Understand, no one is denying gay people shared common rights. But ssm is not a shared right, and thats what I am against.




              4



              2
          • Foo foo says:

            Oh really? What about the heterosexual couples unable to have children? They shouldn’t be allowed to adopt since they can’t have children right Unison?




            1



            2
            • Unison says:

              In this case, a child misses out on having a mother and father – not by solo adoption. But rather by a provision placed in the law, whereby gender in marriage no more counts.




              2



              1
              • Thoughtsy says:

                So I take it you would support same-sex marriage, so long as there were a provision in the law that prohibited same-sex couples having children?

                I didn’t think so. Because, let’s be honest, you’re using “protection of children” as a nonsensical way, on the basis of no fact or logic, to try to convince others that your profoundly immoral position is a righteous one.




                2



                1
      • Diogenes says:

        I would like “Unison” to tell us when he decided to be straight since he thinks persons decided to be gay, all I have ever said is that it is more likely than not that persons are born with their orientations and that the science is still undecided due to the varying opinions and possibilities

        See how easy that is to tear apart?

        You didn’t choose to be straight you just are, you didn’t choose to be an unintelligent XXXXX, lacking in moral fiber and human decency you just are.

        Diogenes




        2



        8
      • Anonymous says:

        Unison, you have nothing on Dio. Wishful thinking. Dio out smarts you on everything and always will because you can’t even reach his level of reality, or his intelligence. You are like a wannabe Dio. #idreamofdio #dioforever #dioforprez




        3



        9
      • Thoughtsy says:

        Regardless of whether a person is born gay, there is plenty of scientific evidence that the trait is immutable. No one is born elderly, or disabled, and yet we allow the elderly and disabled equal dignity under our laws, do we not?




        1



        6
        • Unison says:

          Of course, a trait is immutable. A trait is a distinguishing quality or characteristic of a person. It is observable. And that is why we should all oppose prejudices like racism.

          But being gay is not a physical trait. You can have a guy with feminine features- doesn’t mean he is gay 🤔




          4



          1
          • Thoughtsy says:

            One’s religion is not a physical trait. Does that mean the religious should not be entitled to the “special rights” that allow them to freely practice their faith?




            0



            2
            • Unison says:

              lol … but have you seen government imposing one religion on everybody? 😑

              None .. not in a democracy




              3



              1
              • Thoughtsy says:

                Literally this government, here, in this exact case, opposing the recognition of same-sex marriage on religious grounds and holding church-based political rallies to oppose the recognition of equal rights.




                1



                1
                • Red Ranger says:

                  I see it too thoughtsy. It is more of a theocracy here than democracy with christianity obviously being the predominent religion. This however is changing as more and more are exposed to education, science and the internet. We keep pushing education, and there will be less bible bashing thugs around here trying to run and ruin peoples lives.




                  2



                  1
              • Red Ranger says:

                The worst attrocities done to man has been under democratic rule. Look no further than Adolf Hitler himself. If you think living in a democratic country ensures you won’t be imposed with religious beliefs, then keep up your bible bashing tactics and discriminating ways and maybe some day you might find yourself on the other side of the fence.




                2



                1
    • Thoughtsy says:

      You might Google a little harder. There is absolutely a right for LGBT couples to have their unions legally recognized, even if the court does not now impose a right to the term “marriage” specifically:

      “In a landmark decision, the European Court of Human Rights, which hears human rights cases involving its 47 member countries, has ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to the legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

      In the case of Oliari and Others v. Italy, the judges ruled in favor of three same-sex couples who had brought the case against the Italian government, unanimously agreeing that Italy, in failing to make available “a specific legal framework providing for the recognition and protection of same-sex unions,” was in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

      Article 8 of the Convention states that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence.” While Article 8 was written to protect people from “interference by a public authority” in the exercise of these rights, the court determined that it also put upon European governments “certain positive obligations to ensure effective respect for the rights protected by Article 8,” including “a legal framework” for same-sex couples to have their relationships “recognized and protected.”

      In its judgment, the court noted that “same-sex couples are just as capable as different-sex couples of entering into stable, committed relationships” and that a majority of states party to the ECHR have already enacted legislation permitting same-sex couples to have their union recognized, either as a marriage, civil union, or registered partnerships. The rapid development of the move towards recognition of same-sex unions in the United States was also taken into account.

      Same-sex couples in Italy currently have no satisfactory legal avenue to achieve recognition of their relationships, including civil unions or registered partnerships. Efforts by the Italian government led by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to pass legislation recognizing same-sex civil partnerships in the past few months have stalled in the face of conservative opposition. The court’s finding should provide the necessary pressure to finally get this thing done and give gay and lesbian couples in Italy the status and dignity they require.

      Importantly, what this ruling did not do was determine that there is a legal right to same-sex marriage, specifically. This issue had previously been brought to the ECtHR in 2010 in the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, and it was ruled at that time that Article 12 of the ECHR—“men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family”—did not extend to imposing on European states the demand to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

      The applicants in Oliari and Others v. Italy challenged Article 12 again, in conjunction with Article 14 that prohibits discrimination, arguing among other things that “to persist on denying certain rights to same-sex couples only continued to marginalize and stigmatize a minority group in favor of a majority with discriminatory tendencies.” The Court’s mind was not changed, however. The judges stated that while the wording of Article 12 does not limit marriage to one man and one woman, it also “does not impose an obligation on the respondent Government”—in this case, Italy—“to grant a same-sex couple access to marriage.”

      Nevertheless, what we have here is a significant and stunning legal precedent, one that could be a game-changer for LGBTQ rights organizations and pressure groups across Europe. It could provide the basis for further legal challenges in other European countries that currently do not recognize same-sex relationships, like Poland, Romania, and Greece, and protect the implementation of existing laws in others.”




      1



      8
      • Unison says:

        Thoughtsy, if the ECHR should make such a reckless ruling on all European countries, tell us, what would you have us do with parental and children’s rights? 😐

        You are so hung up with tyranical rule across Europe!




        6



        0
        • Thoughtsy says:

          Um… this ruling already applies across the parties to the ECHR… Italy was the party in this particular case, but the ruling already governs all such countries—INCLUDING CAYMAN.




          1



          2
  28. MM says:

    It is not discrimination! It is simply that our Country only legally recognizes marriage between a man and a woman! Therefore – marriage between two men or two women cannot be recognized under our laws!

    So because the death penalty is accepted legally in some states for a particular murder; should a similar murder in Cayman be penalized the same way? (would be nice)

    We, simply, legally, only acknowledge marriage between a man (born a man, with a REAL penis) and a woman, born a woman (with a REAL vagina) as a REAL marriage… that is not discrimination or cultural difference – it is the law, as it has always been in this country.




    83



    63
    • Thoughtsy says:

      Legal discrimination occurs when fundamental rights are afforded to one group of citizens, but denied to another group of citizens, based on an immutable characteristic.

      There is arguably nothing more fundamental than the right to a private life, the right to form a family, and the right to bear the benefits and burdens that come with having your commitment to the person you love recognized under the law.

      Those are the rights that are afforded to heterosexual Caymanians, but denied to gay and lesbian Caymanians. Those rights are denied on the basis of the immutable characteristic of gay and lesbian Caymanians’ sexual orientation. That is the legal discrimination that occurs, and that this petition appears to be designed to address.

      While I understand the goal of holding on to one’s values, I must admit I have a hard time understanding how remedying this legal discrimination impacts those values in this case.

      The way I see it, recognizing same-sex marriages under the law doesn’t worsen or diminish opposite sex marriages, nor does it force anyone to believe differently than they do today. You can continue to believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, if you so choose, without asking us to turn our backs on our gay and lesbian Caymanian brothers and sisters—forcing them to flee our country, simply so that they may share their lives with the person they love.




      74



      43
    • Bodden says:

      Your right MM. Did you know there is no scientific proof of a gay gene? The whole notion that homosexuality is inborn or an immutable characteristic is hogwash – hence “special rights” for gays are not the same as natural rights🖒




      19



      12
      • Anonymous says:

        Same rights not special rights. How is this so confusing for you.




        12



        13
      • Diogenes says:

        Since there is no gay gene then show me the straight gene. Since the gay one doesn’t exist show me the straight one that proves all the gay people are lying and just up and decided all around the world throughout all of recorded history that they want to be persecuted and gay.

        So you aren’t confused I’m not talking about any random gene or tendency having to do with finding women or the female figure or vaginas attractive
        Show me the specific GENE that is defined as making someone de facto straight. The same scientists that say there is no gay gene also say that they cannot find a

        See how easily your own argument is torn apart by your own logic

        Also there are unconfirmed links and predictions, not having definitive proof doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We don’t have proof of aliens yet it is still highly likely that aliens exist, see how that works. It is most likely a complex interaction between genetic material and environmental factors that is predetermined before birth

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/11/the_science_of_sexual_orientation_the_latest_on_genes_chromosomes_and_environmental.html

        Diogenes




        4



        13
        • Unison says:

          What are you talkin about!
          The whole human genome scanned in 2003 is a testament of 100% straight human genes that has all to do with human nature and reproduction – not one irregularity of showing any other sex organ of a male and female!

          It you that lacks logically straight, then Diogenes I don’t know … smh… But please … trying to twist logic does not remove what is truth and self-evident.

          So … because in your words you admit we have no “definitive proof” you must go to our politicians and have them make laws based on this uncertainty???

          Moreover mess around with the family structure here that protects our children!

          Please feel free to reply the same slavery rights or bible-bashing arguments 🤔




          8



          1
          • Anonymous says:

            The whole genome is a testament to 100% straight human genes? Yet if I gave you the genetic material of a two identical twins one gay twin and a straight twin they would be indistinguishable.

            How does that work?

            Diogenes




            0



            8
            • Unison says:

              I don’t know how that helps your “born gay and can’t help it” argument.

              What do you say when thousands of twins in the world – and one is a homosexual and the other is a heterosexual. But identical genes 🤔




              7



              0
      • Thoughtsy says:

        Show me the science that demonstrates that sexual orientation can be changed.




        2



        6
    • Slacker says:

      “It is not discrimination! It is simply that our Country only legally…” does not allow women to vote or to own slaves… Change and evolution suck.




      6



      4
    • Tony Hawk says:

      I’m guessing you are not a big reader but perhaps start with this.

      https://www.ramapo.edu/law-journal/thesis/justice-fight-sex-marriage-comparison-interracial-marriage/




      2



      5
      • kim says:

        Im black. Please stop comparing a lifestyle with my skin color. There is no way racism can be compared




        13



        4
        • Thoughtsy says:

          While I firmly agree that there are significant distinctions between the civil rights movement and the movement for gay and lesbian equality, I do think it’s worth acknowledging the similarity here between calling homosexuality a “lifestyle” and the racist epithets used against blacks. The phrase “gay lifestyle” is used to denigrate gay and lesbian people, suggesting that their sexual orientation is a choice that can and should be “corrected” or “cured.” A gay person can no more change their sexual orientation than you can change your skin color.




          3



          7
          • Unison says:

            Sexual orientation is not just choice. It takes choice to do the act. But gay comes from many factors interplaying with each other. Some from birth.

            But it is absolutely false when you say gay people can’t change.

            What is dangerous to especially to Caymanian future children, is when you get government involved in our lives to enforced a recognition of same-sex marriage! 😐




            3



            0
    • Anonymous says:

      Real genitals?! Wow I was unaware that 2 women who love each other had fake vaginas. And 2 men who love each other have fake penis? Haha! You are next level ignorant. Carry on.




      9



      3
    • Anonymous says:

      white south africans had similar ideas about a lot of stuff….




      3



      5
    • Diogenes says:

      It’s not discrimination! It is simply that our country doesn’t recognize that women are equal to men. Therefore – women can not be treated like men or recognized as equals under our laws!

      We, simply, legally, only acknowledge that men are genetically superior and given a mandate by our holy book to control and put themselves above women…that is not discrimination or cultural difference – it is the law, as it has always been in this country.

      See how that works?

      Diogenes




      0



      6
  29. Anonymous says:

    How ironic is it that the religious people in our community who preach “love thy neighbor” are the first to discriminate and fight against LGBT equality, yet atheists such as myself are the most tolerant? I’m straight but I have no problem if two men or two women want to love each other if they aren’t harming anyone in anyway.

    Anthony Eden, take note. Make love, not war.




    64



    47
    • Anonymous says:

      Loving thy neighbour does not mean you have to agree with their sexual orientation. As for athiests being the most tolerant, without any evidence to support this view, it amounts to pure conjecture. The laws of nature allow reproduction between a man and woman only, the laws of the Cayman islands recognise marriage as between a man and a woman, respect it as you would any other law.




      68



      38
      • Thoughtsy says:

        Once the laws in Cayman did not permit women their right to vote. The bible says: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

        How is it, then, that this law—which denies the gay and lesbian people of Cayman equal rights under the law—more deserving of respect and preservation than the laws that denied women their right to vote?




        5



        13
      • Thoughtsy says:

        Respecting each person’s equal dignity and entitlement to equality under the law does not mean you have to agree with their sexual orientation either.




        7



        9
        • Anonymous says:

          Actually, it kind of does. That’s the point. Otherwise people wouldn’t be campaigning to change the Law.




          4



          3
          • Thoughtsy says:

            Respect under the law, and agreement with what the law respects, are two different things. Laws are not meant to reflect anyone’s personal views. They are meant to provide a framework under which we can live harmoniously, despite our differences. Since same-sex marriage doesn’t affect anyone else but the same-sex couples getting married, and don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights, our laws can respect same-sex marriages without requiring anyone to agree with same-sex marriages if they so choose.

            Be a bigot if you want to be. But your rights end where mine begin, and you cannot demand that the laws respect bigotry at the expense of another’s rights to a private and family life.




            3



            5
      • Diogenes says:

        The laws of these islands also allowed slavery at one point, should laws in place not be questioned under any circumstances or only when our christian overlords deem it appropriate?

        Diogenes




        8



        12
        • Anonymous says:

          lol

          “christian overlords”

          I wonder which planet your on. The issue is on homosexuality, not religion and your atheist views




          6



          0
          • Diogenes says:

            Yet christianity is the main public defense used by the government, and private citizens to withhold the rights of others also assuming I am atheist, classic

            Diogenes




            0



            2
      • Anonymous says:

        No laws are respected in Cayman, not even by your own leaders. Why respect this one? There are worse laws to break.




        0



        2
      • Just Sayin' says:

        If I loved my neighour as myself I’d likely be arrested.




        8



        1
      • Anonymous says:

        The law of nature doesn’t include sexual abuse of children which is rampant in the Cayman Islands. Premier has never said a word about it or condemned it.




        8



        4
      • Anonymous says:

        You don’t have to ‘agree’ with their sexual orientation – they haven’t asked for your opinion! All you have to do is butt out of their personal life.




        9



        2
    • Anonymous says:

      caymanians know nothing of true christianity…..




      8



      5
  30. Red Ranger says:

    “The sad reality is that the unwillingness to change with respect to the remaining …territories”, which includes Cayman, is as a “result of their bigotry, hidden under the guise of cultural differences”.

    Couldn’t have said it any better myself.




    39



    28
    • Anonymous says:

      Differentiation is not Discrimination




      8



      2
    • Diogenes says:

      Black people didn’t handle slavery well, the white people who enslaved us somehow convinced us that their god, who allowed them to enslave us and take us thousands of miles from our homes was a great guy.

      I’ve never understood why out of everyone black people are the most vehement Christians when we should be the most skeptical due to historical evidence

      Diogenes




      9



      16
  31. Anonymous says:

    I agree with Colours Cayman fully here. Let’s put an end to discrimination as no person our group should deny another equal rights for reason of sexual orientation.




    51



    45
    • Diogenes says:

      The MLAs are going with the flow currently, if public perception and opinion changes, you’ll see how quick the less vocal members flip on the issue, before 10-15 years ago in the US you would be hard pressed to find any politician vocal in support of gays, and if you go back 50,60 or 70 years the same can be said for civil rights. Politicians adapt with the times to stay afloat, if you actually think any of them care about their religious beliefs more than the 100k+ they stand to make per year then you are mistaken.

      The only one of them that I think is vehemently against rights is Anthony Eden, XXXXX

      Diogenes




      11



      10
  32. Anonymous says:

    who cares……😕




    21



    36
    • Diogenes says:

      The persons who are being discriminated against and anyone with any moral fiber

      But who gave a damn about the slaves right, or black people after emancipation?

      Diogenes




      11



      13
      • black reader says:

        smh … comparing gays with blacks. That is so insulting 🙁




        11



        4
        • Diogenes says:

          Sorry I hurt your feelings as a fellow black I am insulted as well by myself, actually nope, never mind I’m not

          Sorry
          Diogenes




          0



          4
      • Anonymous says:

        No group other than Blacks themselves – then and present day.

        Please do not compare gay marriage to racism. It shows your ignorance.




        10



        3
        • Diogenes says:

          Blacks – oppressed because of an immutable trait
          LGBT – oppressed because of an immutable trait

          In different ways yes but the same basic principle, the majority decide what a minority can do an then lord over them

          I never said that the LGBT persons are slaves or that LGBT persons are going through slavery , I compared the struggles of both groups especially in legal context having to do with rights and beliefs associated with religious texts

          Am I the ignorant one or are you for denying a simple truth simply because you disagree?

          Diogenes




          2



          6
  33. Anonymous says:

    More discrimination against Caymanians by our own government!




    23



    32
  34. Anonymous says:

    Slippery slope… if we start letting people tell us that the Bible isn’t right about homosexuality, we’re going to have to start treating black people equally.




    36



    31
    • Diogenes says:

      We ignore all the bits of the bible that talk about slavery, (insert the “biblical slavery wasn’t the same type of slavery” argument here)

      We ignore the portions that talk about divorce and all the other ridiculous portions of the Bible that no omnipotent, omniscient God would bother worrying himself with but Caymanians will fight tooth and nail to hold on to bible based homophobia. Being descended from former slaves, you would think that we, of all people would be tolerant of others and their beliefs, instead you will have a hard time finding a more hate filled community in the world, they talk about “Caymindkind”.
      Cayman is only kind to you if you are willing to pretend to follow the bible word for word while ignoring the bits that everyone else ignores

      The people behind this action might not be Caymanian themselves, but they speak for all the Caymanians too scared too scared for to speak for themselves

      People think the LGBT community should be thankful that Caymanians don’t drag them into the streets and stone them




      9



      13
    • Anonymous says:

      and women….




      5



      0
  35. Anonymous says:

    After this comes the marriage and then the lawsuits against the churches that wont participate! And im sure Alden will be sitting on the sidelines while it occurs – just like Nero fiddled!

    The Chair of pansheer




    40



    13
    • Thoughtsy says:

      Isn’t it going too far to say that churches will be sued for not participating in same-sex marriages? Of the dozens of countries that recognize same-sex marriage, I’m aware of none that require any church to perform them.




      6



      6
    • Al Catraz says:

      Has anyone sued a church for not performing marriages for persons of other faiths?

      The last time I checked, the Catholic church will not perform a marriage ceremony for Protestants. Remarkably, no one sues over this. And the reason is simple.

      Churches have a right to practice according to their religious beliefs.

      There has not been one lawsuit over this in the US, nor will there be. (The only minor issue that comes up is where a church engages in commercial renting of facilities, apart from their religious services).

      Here’s the deal – everyone gets to practice their religion in their churches and homes as they see fit. It does not mean that everyone else in society generally is required to practice your religion, in order for you to have religious freedom.




      7



      5
      • Anonymous says:

        You say ‘minor’ others say ‘thin edge of the wedge’. I’m glad you speak for everyone on ‘your’ side of the argument.




        2



        2
        • Al Catraz says:

          No, it is not the thin end of a wedge, otherwise you would see people suing for the right to be married in Catholic cathedrals and so forth, because they like the architecture.

          The commercial renting of property is another question, and neither Catholic churches nor many Protestant denominations rent their worship space to others on a commercial basis.

          But basic religious liberty means that no one can force another to perform a religious ceremony if they don’t want to.

          Same sex marriage has been legal in many places for many years. The State of Massachusetts is going on 18 years now. Not a single suit against a church for failing to provide a religious ceremony, and Massachusetts is the home of many, many more persons than Cayman, and the US is generally more litigious. How do you explain that?




          1



          6
  36. Diogenes says:

    People think that their religion trumps the fair treatment of others and that will never stop

    If you support equality there really is no point to arguing in the comments, people just double down on their beliefs, no one actually listens to the rational points that people bring up.

    It’s sad but true the same book is used to justify anything Christians pick and choose, on a whim. The parts that are 100% true and believed today are forgotten and thrown out tomorrow.

    If any of you brave Christians feel secure enough in your faith to withstand any contrary evidence, please feel free to watch this video:

    How to Remain Christian
    https://youtu.be/khSo-bgjDT8

    While the rest of us acknowledge the similarities between religions and arbitrary morals and principles, you can continue to live in your fantasies, whatever helps your 60-80 years on this Earth feel a little less lonely

    I’ll Leave this little gem here:

    Matthew 7:1-3
    “1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.

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

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

    Remember Cayman:
    Judge other persons for going against your holy book but you will be judged for going against the same holy book, whether you admit it or not according to your standards we are all sinners and thus will all be judged

    Diogenes




    36



    47
    • Anonymous says:

      Right wing Christian Fundamentalism, abnormally common in the West Indies, represents the extreme minority of Global Christianity viewpoints.




      3



      5
      • Al Catraz says:

        “abnormally common in the West Indies”

        ….speaking of ideas brought in by outsiders…

        The West Indies have been conveniently close, and conveniently economically disadvantaged, for generations of upstart US denominations to affordably send missionaries for “church planting” in a climate suitable for comfortable relaxation to take a break from all that hard soul saving business.

        If religious heritage were important in Cayman, then it is surprising that there are not so many Anglicans as there are Baptists, Assembly of God, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, LDS, and what-have-you – all of which were brought to Cayman by outsiders.

        For those going on about ideas being imposed on Cayman from “outsiders”, could you please identify the indigenous Cayman religious denomination?

        Surely, it is not any religion whose Scripture forbids eating turtle.




        8



        5
    • Anonymous says:

      Dio blows us away again with his or her class and reality check. Should be leading this country.




      6



      11
    • Bahamut says:

      Diogenes has points, but seeing quotes from the Bible from both sides of the arguement is like reading a skit from a harry potter book I swear. All of this controversy over some a sky daddy no one can prove exist. What’s the point?




      4



      6
  37. Anonymous says:

    Who cares what they think! Thank God for Brexit!




    28



    17
  38. Anonymous says:

    not sure what the big deal is , give them their rights already




    29



    31
  39. The Garden Of Eden says:

    “Open the door, get on the floor,
    Everybody walk the dinosaur”




    15



    9
  40. Boggy Sound man says:

    Lots of sides to this coin isn’t there Mr. Premier!




    5



    4
  41. Anonymous says:

    Here we go




    28



    24
    • Anonymous says:

      Two same sex people should NOT be called it marriage, it should be called a contract and be calling them my partner NOT calling a same sex mate their wife and husband.
      That would be a difference between a marriage of a man and woman. for only a man and woman should be called wife and husband. They could get the same benfits of a man and woman in marriage, but be called a Contract between two same sex people or some other name.




      32



      31
      • Thoughtsy says:

        Why?




        4



        4
      • Anonymous says:

        Well that’s just the point isn’t it…despite our obligations, we havent even provided the legal framework to recognize same-sex civil unions.




        5



        2
      • Diogenes says:

        In case you are confused, Christians did not invent the idea of a two person civil union (aka legally recognized union separate from the church) There was a time when the church didn’t concern itself with marriage or overseeing marriages. In fact over the years Christians have taken bits from the practices of others before them (that some would consider pagans) and added it on to your holy matrimony for example the ring (or rings) are an ancient Roman tradition long out dating Christianity or Christs purported lifetime

        If you think your religion has some kind of monopoly on marriage you would be mistaken, while the customs and wording may be unique to your religion, the principle is found the world over

        People just want equal rights, is that so hard to understand?

        Diogenes




        13



        10
    • sally bj says:

      we had gay people on this island over45yrs an nobody paid them any mine,and nobody still do not care what you all do in your homes.but do not carry this on in public.,.when you have people coming to this iisland and telling us how to live then we have a problem.caymanians traveled all over the world and we do not go to other peoples countries and demand what we want.so you come to my country and demand.i say go home.and the Caymanian that is behine this I thought better of you than this.you.




      55



      35
      • Thoughtsy says:

        I, for one, see our gay and lesbian Caymanian brothers and sisters as entitled to live the same full lives as anyone else. Who are we to tell them they can’t love who they want in public when everyone else is entitled to do the same?




        13



        10
      • Diogenes says:

        There are plenty of Gay Caymanians don’t mistake fear for nonexistence
        and for some of them this is their home, don’t forget that

        Diogenes




        11



        13
        • Unison says:

          And do they want government control? Do they want same-sex marriage? Do they need government to validate and give them a stamp of approval? Are they all liberal like yourself? Are they all eager to call anyone who disagrees with them as hater, bigot, or homophobic?

          I don’t think so, Diogenes. Maybe you should canvass and do a poll.😐




          4



          1
      • Thoughtsy says:

        Are we really being told how to live? Or are we the ones telling others how to live, when our public figures openly condemn gay and lesbian people and say they aren’t deserving of equal treatment under the law?




        8



        7
      • Rain says:

        So my question to you is where do the caymanians go that are gay ? Isnt this there home? what they need to worry aboutis the crime thats happening on this island not worrying about two people loving each other….that wanna have a family maybe buy a house together get a grib people….




        9



        11
      • Anonymous says:

        Says “Sally bj” lol!




        3



        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Not about publicity at all. I wanted to be on island with my partner and simply cannot because of the lack of rights. We’re forced to be separated by distance geographically and this has nothing to do with what we prefer to put forth in public, or what we choose to title our relationship as. If you were forced to be away from your beloved, you would understand. But fortunately for you, you don’t have to deal with this problem. Please think about things with reason before making presumptions that Caymanians are being told how to live. If anything, my Caymanian partner surely doesn’t feel like she can live how she wants because of the unfairness and lack of rights. She is being told how to live in Cayman because she can’t physically be with her partner who isn’t Caymanian.




        1



        3
    • Anonymous says:

      It’s gonna be a good one! Get out the popcorn!




      7



      7

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.