A change of heart on same-sex civil unions
Correct me if I’m wrong. There are only two known main forces of energy that govern the existing evolution of all life forms on this earth that are dictated by nature, right?
Am I also correct in saying that it is those same two energies that generate the power that produces light and that those same two forces have been scientifically defined as that of negative and positive?
From a very young age growing up, I have always been made aware of the power of negative and positive, and what could go wrong if the wrong connections were made. I have been told that these dynamic forces of power could be found in just about everything produced in life, and without them, nothing around us would exist or make any sense.
Just imagine for a moment all the creations of life that these two energy forces are responsible for producing: night and day, love and hate, war and peace. They are responsible from as far back in time as I have been made to understand for the two most important organisms that generate the reproduction of all biological life — the female and the male. Without those two bodies of energy, life as we know it would not exist, period. Yet, at the same time, I do recognise that all that appears on the landscape of life isn’t perfect.
Mr Editor, I don’t want to make it look as if I’m suggesting a law should be made to dictate what two consenting adults should or should not do; all I am saying is that it has not been shown that negative and negative has as yet produced any light.
Mr Editor, marriage in the cultural and traditional sense as we have known it has always been between a man and a woman. Why, Mr Editor? Because only a man and a woman are the ones that are most able to produce the many successive generations of people that are needed to repopulate the Earth. Isn’t that too hard to understand? Most gay men that I have known that have since died had produced no offspring. Thus, there is no one left in this life to carry on their genes.
Mr Editor, when the referendum on same-sex marriage was conducted, I voted against both positions becoming law. Since which I have given much thought to the situation and have somewhat changed my mind. Mr Editor, I am not in the business of dictating how or who one should like or love, or even for that matter goes to bed with.
What I am saying is this: that I believe that the concept of traditional marriage as we have always known it to be should be reserved only for the union between a man and a woman. As for those of the same sex, my suggestion is that they should accept the civil union position because, Mr Editor, both positions are totally different in that one pair are producers of successive generation and are responsible for the continuity of life, while at the same time the same-sex couples are not.
To me, Mr Editor, the situation isn’t really all that complex; some people are only just trying to make it look that way to suit their selfish causes. For as long as I have come to know myself, I was born to be a man and I have only accepted those things that respond only to the natural forces of nature.
I could have never had a son to carry on my genes if I was involved in a same-sex relationship. Yes, laws can be made to suit any situation one would like these days, but they could never circumvent the forces of nature.
If that was ever to be the case, then we are surely heading down a one-way road towards a dead end to humanity and mankind.
E. McNEIL STOVELL
New digital asset business seeks 16 staff
‘Hate’ to say, I told you so
Child expert urges House to reject amendment
Going strong: Archie not the retiring type
Fireworks expected in year-end House sitting
Palmetto Road tree not likely to topple
Date set for Bermudians on UK terror charges
Analyst: Arbitrade must ‘come clean’ on gold
Bus drivers agree to earlier shift start
Clarence “Tessi” Terceira (1927-2018)
Simmons calls for a ‘meeting of the minds’
Customer service key to Tuck Shop success
Best ‘sickened’ by Sterling abuse
Take Our Poll