A stance based on grounds of Nature

Make text smaller Make text larger

  • What does he mean? Michael Dunkley said he wants to be “on the right side of history”

    What does he mean? Michael Dunkley said he wants to be “on the right side of history”

Dear Sir,

All through my 68 years of growing up, I have always been of the understanding that the only way for light to be produced was for the coming together of both the forces of negative and positive — there was no other way, period.

For as far as I could see, in order for all the generations that will follow us and take our place to carry on the spark of life, that continuance of life can be reproduced only by a man and a woman, and it is through that process that the genes of those that have passed on before us will live on in the future.

As far as my education of the facts has taught me, negative and negative nor positive and positive has yet to produce any light. Mr Editor, it is not for me to tell two people how to live their lives or what they should or should not be doing in the privacy of their bedrooms, nor do I care about them sharing any form of intimate relationships.

What I don’t like is for anyone who thinks that they have a right or should have their way to try to force their sexuality or their contradictions to normal life down my throat — I take offence to that.

As far as I’m concerned, marriage is a natural act that can be carried out only through the relationship of a man and a woman because the facts are that only the sexual connection between a man and a woman can produce a child.

We have just had a referendum on the issue of same-sex-marriage and the people have clearly spoken “No”. If the above measure had passed, does that mean that a man could then go into and use a woman’s toilet as if normal? That sounds very frightening.

I’m also confused by the Premier’s statement that he wants to be on the right side of history. I don’t know what that meant; maybe he needs to clarify what he really meant by that.

All I could say is this: if it was not for the natural sexual activities between the man and woman of past history, not one of us would be standing here today discussing what form the future should take.

By the way, it’s not on religious grounds that I make my statement; it’s on the grounds of Nature.



You must be registered or signed-in to post comment or to vote.

Published May 15, 2017 at 8:00 am (Updated May 15, 2017 at 12:13 pm)

A stance based on grounds of Nature

What you
Need to
1. For a smooth experience with our commenting system we recommend that you use Internet Explorer 10 or higher, Firefox or Chrome Browsers. Additionally please clear both your browser's cache and cookies - How do I clear my cache and cookies?
2. Please respect the use of this community forum and its users.
3. Any poster that insults, threatens or verbally abuses another member, uses defamatory language, or deliberately disrupts discussions will be banned.
4. Users who violate the Terms of Service or any commenting rules will be banned.
5. Please stay on topic. "Trolling" to incite emotional responses and disrupt conversations will be deleted.
6. To understand further what is and isn't allowed and the actions we may take, please read our Terms of Service
7. To report breaches of the Terms of Service use the flag icon

  • Take Our Poll

    • "How much significance should Bermudians place in royal weddings?"
    • High
    • 15%
    • Moderate
    • 30%
    • Indifferent
    • 20%
    • None
    • 35%
    • Total Votes: 1877
    • Poll Archive

    Today's Obituaries