You know, I have been making a point for a while now, which I don't think the RAB and the like are paying attention to.

How many homosexuals out there have already pledged themselves as each other's life partner? Even so far as to have a ceremony to acknowledge it? Even wear rings? The only differences between them and heterosexual life partners, is that heterosexuals call themselves husbands and wives, and they have certain benefits afforded to them.

Now, I don't think homosexuals are fighting to be called husbands and wives, they are fighting for the benefits.

The point of all this arguing is simply that they want certain rights as a couple, that they are not afforded to, ie. hospital visits, next of kin status, availability of family medical insurance, etc. The same things that marriage automatically provides to heterosexual partners.

My point was always that they should seek to have a bill passed to make a law which affords homosexual couples the same benefits that heterosexual spouses have. All that's needed is a registry which will record this data, just as there is one for a marriage. That's what they should be fighting for, not making a big fuss by seeking the easiest way possible to obtain these benefits, which is allowing marriage for homosexuals.

Fighting for marriage, which is a ritual to celebrate the union of a man and a woman, is not choosing the right battle.
Fighting for rights of a married couple is the correct battle, and one which may be won sooner than many think.

NO NO NO NO!!!
I wish whosoever will, will hurry go and try to apply for marriage license so that they could be DENIED and end this foolishness.
If you desperately need to say some vows, go do a Anna Nicole and Howard Stern!
I never would have guess that this is how you feel about same sex-marriages. As a matter of fact, in the past, I was so impressed with your support of GLBT issues, I once sent you a PM asking if you were a CORE member of the RAB? :shhh:

Same-sex couples wishing to marry are not seeking publicity stunts, such as the one pulled by the late Anna Nicole, and Howard Stern, they simply want the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts to a “state sanctioned” marriage, with all the legal privileges.

Just last night I was watching a video clip on current.com which featured two lesbians discussing the aftermath of the first U.S. State, Massachusetts in May 2004, to allow same-sex marriages. They spoke about the tremendous anxiety expressed by some and how some critics predicted that this would be the end of "marriage as an institution", but after the vote to approve same-sex marriages, they said, ”NOTHING HAPPENED, heterosexuals still marry, divorce, and do all the things pertaining to marriage as they did before the vote”...

Bahamian Goddess, “when we deny another's human rights, this detract from our human rights, and makes us all less human”... :hammer:

Sweetie I ain prejudice against homosexual's, as a matter of fact, I have a cousin who does play dress up too. Actually they are very cool people, some of my bestest make-up and hair tips come from him.
I am wary when someone preface their words with the phrase, “ I ‘m not prejudice”... I believe if this be the case, then there is no need to defend oneself.

Thanks for acknowledging your “effeminate” cousin... I bet he even gives you some of your best fashion tips as well... or are you too ashamed to admit it?

[However, I laughed along with Lurker because the photo was down right funny! And when I am males acting as females I laugh, their behaviour is hilarious. I saw group in Freeport last Friday at the Victoria Inn hotel for some event at Joker's Wild and I laughed until my head hurt.
[B]Humour is good, and we should all, at times, laugh at ourselves; however, I believe that Lurker’s post was in poor taste, insensitive, and mean-spirited, considering the tenor of the discussions at the time. :taped2:

I accept them for what they were born as and that is a far as my support go.
You can put on all the make-up and get as many procedures done as possible, IN MY OPINION, if your birth certificate say male, that is who I accept you as, the same applies to female. You cannot take an APPLE and turn it into a BANANA.
I will not discriminate, nor will I treat you differently, I simply will not accept, nor will I acknowledge you, as the sex that you want to be.
I gat one male cousin who believes he is a woman too. I treat him now, the same way I treated him when he wore pants and knew he was a man.
Please listen to own your own words, my dear, as there appears to be a contradiction in terms.

But, seriously, have you ever attempted to UNDERSTAND your male cousin, to sit and and TALK with him, to try to SEE him as he VIEWS HIMSELF. This, of course, requires you to LISTEN and be NON-JUDGEMENTAL, the key words being EMPATHY and COMPASSION... This is my challenge to you... :angel:

You cannot thrust your beliefs on other people.
I have an aunt who is a Jehovah's Witness and she is always trying to convert me and make me believe in her teachings. I will tell you what I tell her, It ain never gonner happen.
In my humble opinion, this is a poor analogy... GLBT are not asking you to stop being heterosexual (I presume that you are), and marry someone of the same-sex. That would be preposterous, as you ARE who you ARE. No one can make you change your "nature".

They are simply demanding the basic human rights enjoyed by heterosexuals in our parliamentary democracy, namely, to love who they chose and to marry their same-sex partners, with all the legal privileges.

While yall on the subject i have to mention. When I use to watch Arrested Development I was like damn that woman fine ie Portia Derossi. I dint know her name back then until she became attatched to Ellen Degeneres.


The woman is fine and my hats go off to ellen for pullin such a fine catch.

You know, I have been making a point for a while now, which I don't think the RAB and the like are paying attention to.
How many homosexuals out there have already pledged themselves as each other's life partner? Even so far as to have a ceremony to acknowledge it? Even wear rings? The only differences between them and heterosexual life partners, is that heterosexuals call themselves husbands and wives, and they have certain benefits afforded to them.
Now, I don't think homosexuals are fighting to be called husbands and wives, they are fighting for the benefits.
The point of all this arguing is simply that they want certain rights as a couple, that they are not afforded to, ie. hospital visits, next of kin status, availability of family medical insurance, etc. The same things that marriage automatically provides to heterosexual partners.
My point was always that they should seek to have a bill passed to make a law which affords homosexual couples the same benefits that heterosexual spouses have. All that's needed is a registry which will record this data, just as there is one for a marriage. That's what they should be fighting for, not making a big fuss by seeking the easiest way possible to obtain these benefits, which is allowing marriage for homosexuals.
Fighting for marriage, which is a ritual to celebrate the union of a man and a woman, is not choosing the right battle.
Fighting for rights of a married couple is the correct battle, and one which may be won sooner than many think.
I hear you, but this brings to mind the basic principles of the the landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, in the Case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

I believe so it is with the state "institution" of marriage... we cannot and should not have separate "institutions", one registry for heterosexual and another for homosexual marriages, and call it equal. If they are separate, then they are inherently unequal, simple as that...

Human rights are human rights...:hammer:

You know, I have been making a point for a while now, which I don't think the RAB and the like are paying attention to.
How many homosexuals out there have already pledged themselves as each other's life partner? Even so far as to have a ceremony to acknowledge it? Even wear rings? The only differences between them and heterosexual life partners, is that heterosexuals call themselves husbands and wives, and they have certain benefits afforded to them.
Now, I don't think homosexuals are fighting to be called husbands and wives, they are fighting for the benefits.
The point of all this arguing is simply that they want certain rights as a couple, that they are not afforded to, ie. hospital visits, next of kin status, availability of family medical insurance, etc. The same things that marriage automatically provides to heterosexual partners.
My point was always that they should seek to have a bill passed to make a law which affords homosexual couples the same benefits that heterosexual spouses have. All that's needed is a registry which will record this data, just as there is one for a marriage. That's what they should be fighting for, not making a big fuss by seeking the easiest way possible to obtain these benefits, which is allowing marriage for homosexuals.
Fighting for marriage, which is a ritual to celebrate the union of a man and a woman, is not choosing the right battle.
Fighting for rights of a married couple is the correct battle, and one which may be won sooner than many think.
RAB has never asked for marriage
RAB simply said its illegal not to allow them
but then i forget
some of you guys can't conceptualize anything more complicated than fifth grade math

I hear you, but this brings to mind the basic principles of the the landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, in the Case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
I believe so it is with the state "institution" of marriage... we cannot and should not have separate "institutions", one registry for heterosexual and another for homosexual marriages, and call it equal. If they are separate, then they are inherently unequal, simple as that...
Human rights are human rights...:hammer:

We are not talking of education here truth. Seperate = unequal does not apply to every aspect of society. If that were the case, they should abandon the homosexual schools created in the US, eh? Under your reasoning above, they should.

Think of it as the letter Y, people being channeled through two different points, but coming out together at the end. It's just different procedures involved, but at the end of the line, the same rights are afforded.

RAB has never asked for marriage
RAB simply said its illegal not to allow them
but then i forget
some of you guys can't conceptualize anything more complicated than fifth grade math

RAB never asked for it? That's new. But, it's also something that I never said. I said they are fighting for it, not ASKING for it.

You're trying to say that the RAB is of the position, "Hey, we aren't asking for homosexual marriage, but for those who do want it, well we're here for you."

Right.

That's supporting/fighting for a cause; which is expressed by some of their members, or people seeking their help in seeing it realized. Perhaps you can't conceptualize anything after getting upset over someone speaking sensible reason, which you interpret as resistance. (Either that or you can't get past the first sentence of a post.)

Now, do you have any response for the remaining 12 sentences of my post, or are you done?

We are not talking of education here truth. Seperate = unequal does not apply to every aspect of society. If that were the case, they should abandon the homosexual schools created in the US, eh? Under your reasoning above, they should.
Think of it as the letter Y, people being channeled through two different points, but coming out together at the end. It's just different procedures involved, but at the end of the line, the same rights are afforded.
Firstly, these schools were not formed because of strict segregation laws, but out of a necessity, as America is still, basically, a homophobic society.

In fact, we have the very same problem right here in our family of islands. I do not know if you are gay or know of any gay adolescents, but if you talk with them, many would confirm to you that there is a very homophobic and often times violent anti-gay school environment for gay students here in the Bahamas. And they are attacked not only from their fellow students, but from insensitive teachers and administrators, as well. Many gay students end up dropping out of school rather than face this hostility. And, in too many cases, they go home and are met with equal or even worst treatment... Perhaps our MOE need to consider a similar program here in the Bahamas, as the NYC Board of Education high school for gay students...

Secondly, having lived in the United States, although those school may exist because of the reality of many young gays being the victim of gay bashing and developing low self-esteem in an anti-gay school environment, no one, by law, can be denied enrollment...

Thirdly, I have read the Marriage Act and strongly agree with Ms. Erin Greene's contention in the Tribune News Article, that there is no language in the Marriage Act that prohibits gays from marriage. So, let us not re-invent the wheel, aye? This is simply a mute point...:hammer:

Firstly, these schools were not formed because of strict segregation laws, but out of a necessity, as America is still, basically, a homophobic society.
In fact, we have the very same problem right here in our family of islands. I do not know if you are gay or know of any gay adolescents, but if you talk with them, many would confirm to you that there is a very homophobic and often times violent anti-gay school environment for gay students here in the Bahamas. And they are attacked not only from their fellow students, but from insensitive teachers and administrators, as well. Many gay students end up dropping out of school rather than face this hostility. And, in too many cases, they go home and are met with equal or even worst treatment... Perhaps our MOE need to consider a similar program here in the Bahamas, as the NYC Board of Education high school for gay students...
Secondly, having lived in the United States, although those school may exist because of the reality of many young gays being the victim of gay bashing and developing low self-esteem in an anti-gay school environment, no one, by law, can be denied enrollment...
Thirdly, I have read the Marriage Act and strongly agree with Ms. Erin Greene's contention in the Tribune News Article, that there is no language in the Marriage Act that prohibits gays from marriage. So, let us not re-invent the wheel, aye? This is simply a mute point...:hammer:

You now back when schools were segregated the black schools offered a lower quality of education right? Hence the reasoning behind the fight for integration, so that all could have equal quality education.

But anyway, OK. Now, are you are you going to answer the question of by the schools being seperate, are they unequal?

The necessity of it was not the question, but even if it was, I could use your post above to solidify my point of a seperate registry for homosexual unions. That because of some animosity against homosexuals wanting what is regarded as a christian marriage, they may have their own ceremony and be recognized, just as other heterosexual spouses. Still they would be getting equal rights as the heterosexual spouses, so no seperate = unequal.

But just in case you want to leave the seperate = unequal idea alone, let's look at the Marriage Act fiasco. LOL.

You and so many others are correct in that the Marriage Act does not state that homosexuals cannot marry. But this is only because it hasn't been amended in recent years. I don't know why it hasn't, but I guess there isn't a real need to do so as yet. (I suspect that if this fuss escalates, it will be amended sooner than planned, to state marriage is only possible between a man and woman.)

This is why in the Marriage Clause Act, or whatever the correct name is, it plainly states it there.

Case in point: if a homosexual couple were to apply for a marriage license, and they get it, and get married, based on the Marriage Act, do you know what would happen after they get married? The marriage would be annulled, because of the Marriage Clause Act.

This is why the marriage license wouldn't be issued anyway, because Common Sense would step in and say "this marriage will be annulled anyway, so there is no point in issuing a license." Very good point Common Sense.

So, by all means, apply for a marriage license, but realize that if you get one and get as far as marriage, it will be annulled.

Really though, to avoid all this, they should simply amend the Marriage Act. But, as I pointed out, this fuss will probably lead them to do just that, once it gets to an unbearable point.

You know, I have been making a point for a while now, which I don't think the RAB and the like are paying attention to.
How many homosexuals out there have already pledged themselves as each other's life partner? Even so far as to have a ceremony to acknowledge it? Even wear rings? The only differences between them and heterosexual life partners, is that heterosexuals call themselves husbands and wives, and they have certain benefits afforded to them.
Now, I don't think homosexuals are fighting to be called husbands and wives, they are fighting for the benefits.
The point of all this arguing is simply that they want certain rights as a couple, that they are not afforded to, ie. hospital visits, next of kin status, availability of family medical insurance, etc. The same things that marriage automatically provides to heterosexual partners.
My point was always that they should seek to have a bill passed to make a law which affords homosexual couples the same benefits that heterosexual spouses have. All that's needed is a registry which will record this data, just as there is one for a marriage. That's what they should be fighting for, not making a big fuss by seeking the easiest way possible to obtain these benefits, which is allowing marriage for homosexuals.
Fighting for marriage, which is a ritual to celebrate the union of a man and a woman, is not choosing the right battle.
Fighting for rights of a married couple is the correct battle, and one which may be won sooner than many think.

very well said. I think you are leaps and bounds ahead of most of the posters on this thread.....at the very least in your understanding of the actual legal ramifications that same sex couples face and the idea that they should be provided the same protections as any other couple that chooses to "commit"

I dont think most gay people think...actually scratch that....i will only speak for me.

I dont care what its called per se. I would just like to be afforded the same protections as anyone else that chooses to commit and live their lives as a couple.....those of us who have done it (straight or gay) know that being a committed couple is hard work and the legal benefits (and pitfalls) should be shared by anyone willing to seriously endeavor in such a very real commitment.

My only problem is that the idea of accepting some second best term for that commitment to simply appease the ignorant just rubs me the wrong way.

I also think that if you actually believe as you've written above....which is that fairness should allow such commitments to have the same protections...then you do not represent the arguments of watasyu, the point, and wintergrace.

I think that they will fight everything and anything that is gay simply because it is such......they think gay is a choice and the wrong choice at that.

But they can speak for themselves.

Hey Postmortem, I am still waiting for a response to my last post, even though I appreciate Vicky responding to it already?

RAB has never asked for marriage
RAB simply said its illegal not to allow them
but then i forget
some of you guys can't conceptualize anything more complicated than fifth grade math

:confused:

I confess that I haven't read all of the postings in this thread, however I have a consideration.

Historically marriage laws were enacted to formalise and protect the union of a man and a woman because when people procreate, the woman is at a physical and economical disadvantage while having children.

Hence the marriage laws define both a male and a female. The basis of rights and protections of the union is to address and codify the protection of the woman.

I do not agree that gay couples should share government social programs such as pension survivorship, and the rights and privileges according a woman in a marriage because of her service to the family in procreation.

Yes that I've heard that tired argument that those rights extend to women who choose not to procreate, but that is only because until recently it was a man's world.

In a gay marriage, it is a marriage of financial peers, and those rights that gays speak of wanting do not apply because of the basic premise of marriage -- the union of a man and a woman for the procreation and continuance of an orderly society. And no amount of argument or dialectics can mitigate that fact.

QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Just last night I was watching a video clip on current.com which featured two lesbians discussing the aftermath of the first U.S. State, Massachusetts in May 2004, to allow gay’s the right to marry. They spoke about the tremendous anxiety of some and how the critics predicted that this would be the end to marriage as an institution, but they said, ”NOTHING HAPPENED, heterosexuals still marry, divorce and do all the things they did before the vote”...

I do not worry about America, however, they should know 'blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. America will fall! And these are some of the things that will lead to it's downfall!


If I was really prejudice against you guys, believe you me, my name would have a red line through it. I am just tired of these threads where anytime certain things are said, people are stocking up dillies, armour and they go into hiding. For so few people of your persuasion, you guys are really good at holding this forum hostage.

Everytime a thread like this shows up, people always say "here we go again". These topic's have dominated this forum for too long with disastrous results. They have led to people being banned, friendships being dissolved and all manner of ill names being bestowed upon each other. I want to talk about the show in Freeport last week without being called prejudice or insensitive. That is my rights.

BI have endured you guys and have tried to be cordial by participating in your discussions, but I know even the pastor does get tired of going to church sometimes!!! We are tired of the long drawn arguments about something THE MAJORITY OF US DO NOT SUPPORT! The only thread longer than these are who kill Hal? and Word Association. These threads are hostile grounds and are very irritating!

I respect you as individuals but will not support you cause. It is like politics, this is a topic we will never all agree on, the only difference is election is once every five years, but this topic comes up every day!

I just wish you guys would take this fight from BI to courtroom where the true answer really lies. We could have 100 pages on this discussion and this will not solve the problem!

I wish you guys a speedy trial so this matter can be laid to rest once and for all.

truth_hurts12
I never would have guess that this is how you feel about gay marriages. As a matter of fact, in the past, I was so impressed with your support of gay issues, I once sent you a PM asking if you were a CORE member of the RAB?

Do not take my silence or none participation in these types of threads as support. I have no problem with RAB members, you are people just like me. I simply do not support what you do or your cause!


They are simply demanding the SAME RIGHTS enjoyed by heterosexuals in our parliamentary democracy, that is, to love who they chose and to marry their same- sex partner, with all the legal privileges

Demand your rights but not from me, I already said no!

[QUOTE=truth_hurts12;272158]QUOTE]
I do not worry about America, however, they should know 'blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. America will fall! And these are some of the things that will lead to it's downfall!
If I was really prejudice against you guys, believe you me, my name would have a red line through it. I am just tired of these threads where anytime certain things are said, people are stocking up dillies, armour and they go into hiding. For so few people of your persuasion, you guys are really good at holding this forum hostage.
Everytime a thread like this shows up, people always say "here we go again". These topic's have dominated this forum for too long with disastrous results. They have led to people being banned, friendships being dissolved and all manner of ill names being bestowed upon each other. I want to talk about the show in Freeport last week without being called prejudice or insensitive. That is my rights.
BI have endured you guys and have tried to be cordial by participating in your discussions, but I know even the pastor does get tired of going to church sometimes!!! We are tired of the long drawn arguments about something THE MAJORITY OF US DO NOT SUPPORT! The only thread longer than these are who kill Hal? and Word Association. These threads are hostile grounds and are very irritating!
I respect you as individuals but will not support you cause. It is like politics, this is a topic we will never all agree on, the only difference is election is once every five years, but this topic comes up every day!
I just wish you guys would take this fight from BI to courtroom where the true answer really lies. We could have 100 pages on this discussion and this will not solve the problem!
I wish you guys a speedy trial so this matter can be laid to rest once and for all.
Do not take my silence or none participation in these types of threads as support. I have no problem with RAB members, you are people just like me. I simply do not support what you do or your cause!
Demand your rights but not from me, I already said no!YOU MADE tears came out of my eyes,....you are so right and I can honestly say that you speak for about 85% of the regular members of BI... I hope that they all take note of what you say....

JUST FOR THE RECORD.. tonight, BI was discussed at a social function I was to, and the rep that we have now is that it is a gay site.... that did not bother me.. but other BI members were they and they are thinking that people have a view that they are GAY..

YOU POINT is well thought out and presented with much grace and clearity...

Thanks, I second your motion.....

Now can we have the vote......

YOU GET YOUR OWN SITE>>>>>>