Nice touch -- the citronella bit. But it seems to me that gay people are a bit loosey goosey with what constitutes human rights. The phrase Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is universally recognised. Let us go down that road with finer granularity. Human rights also include:


Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Religion
Right of Political Dissent


Where is there the freedom to suck at the teat of the social safety net? Gays gotta decide whether they want the rights of women or the rights of men. Those are defined in the marriage laws. A man has to pay support to his wife, but rarely does the wife pay support to the husband upon separation. They (gays) seem to want the rights of both depending on what they decide. I was going to be a lot more graphic, but the scent of citronella has intervened. Someday I will be able to even suppress the thoughts.

Any way, let's take it a step further. Let us suppose that you subscribe to the philosopher Hegel's broader definition of human rights. His list includes:


own property
make contracts with other people
make moral promises to people
live with anyone
get protection from laws
have a voice in government


Take a look at particularly the lines "Make Moral Promises To People". That does not preclude gays from having a commitment ceremony. But moi, the kinder gentler Lurker still contends that they do not deserve the same access to social safety net that a spouse enjoys through marriage.

And the same argument applies to "Live with anyone".

As far as I can see, basic human rights are satisfied. And this is based on erudition and sober second thought -- not a gut reaction. I have no problem with making gays feel better about their place in society as long as it doesn't involve the public purse or family law. Get it> There is a reason why marriage court is called "FAMILY" Law. Common Law is now just being developed with gay divorce, and the courts are overloaded as is.

So you have my thoughts -- nothing more. I don't drink Kool Aid -- that is reserved for PLPs and Jonestownies. Chanti chanti chanti
Thank you ever so much for that education in Law. However, I believe that what is being sought is more the right to be accorded the DIGNITY conferred with the traditional marital ceremony by those presently living in illegal unions.

While the recent decision in the California courts has given hope to many that there will finally be a greater acceptance to the idea of Gay Marriage, the backlash of the Christian majority will correct this glitch when Americans next go to the polls.

You homophobes are some ignant people.....pure stupidity. It's almost satisfying in itself to think what blind simple and ignorant lives you must live.
almost.

wait, now SpamStopper has been called a closet gay, a tranny in disguise, a sympathizer to the GLBT, Vickys lover, da debil, the devil, Satan, Racist, red neck, conchie joe, ignorant white trash, Sperm killer, a Virus, Evil, Mean, Rude, and well the list goes on ..

now which is it .. is he a homophobe or one of the above? :confused:

or we talking bout someone else :D

Thank you ever so much for that education in Law. However, I believe that what is being sought is more the right to be accorded the DIGNITY conferred with the traditional marital ceremony by those presently living in illegal unions.
While the recent decision in the California courts has given hope to many that there will finally be a greater acceptance to the idea of Gay Marriage, the backlash of the Christian majority will correct this glitch when Americans next go to the polls.


In the interest of being totally accurate, gays living together are not in an illegal union.

Dignity itself is defined as the state of being worthy of honor or respect. Gays can have that by their exemplary character as a couple, a non-lacivious, monogamous lifestyle dedicated to one partner (at a time) and decency and decorum in their public and private lives.

I do not object to some sort of union ceremony between gays. I do object to legal rights and privileges of a social nature accorded to marriages that they are not qualified to entertain solely because of their intrinsic state.

In the interest of being totally accurate, gays living together are not in an illegal union.

Dignity itself is defined as the state of being worthy of honor or respect. Gays can have that by their exemplary character as a couple, a non-lacivious, monogamous lifestyle dedicated to one partner (at a time) and decency and decorum in their public and private lives.

I do not object to some sort of union ceremony between gays. I do object to legal rights and privileges of a social nature accorded to marriages that they are not qualified to entertain solely because of their intrinsic state.
Thanks again for the point of clarification. My thoughts on the matter of Bahamians wishing to challenge existing legislation while seeking to redefine the model of family is in agreement with a recent article by Mr. Gorman Bannister in his BLACKBELT which suggests that Gay's Should Live Quietly and Die Decently! Sounded like good advice to me.

Thank you ever so much for that education in Law. However, I believe that what is being sought is more the right to be accorded the DIGNITY conferred with the traditional marital ceremony by those presently living in illegal unions.
While the recent decision in the California courts has given hope to many that there will finally be a greater acceptance to the idea of Gay Marriage, the backlash of the Christian majority will correct this glitch when Americans next go to the polls.


Edit as i clearly didnt read fully.

Lurker lectures on this historical idea of marriage being a creation to provide protections for a woman and therefore should remain out of reach for gays.

Ridiculous.

Maybe historically that was so. Times have changed. The ability of women to succeed and prosper on their own has changed. In fact many of the women i know are the bread winners in their respective households. I still for one think women have not reached pay equality and there is much that still needs to be done. But the whole idea and time of a woman needing the protections of a mans hand in marriage to be secure......has passed.

Marriage is a commitment two people make to each other. This commitment has strong legal implications and protections. These should be allowed to any two people who choose to make such a commitment.

Maybe gays should accept some lesser terminology to soothe the nerves of the bigots???

Equally ridiculous.

wait, now SpamStopper has been called a closet gay, a tranny in disguise, a sympathizer to the GLBT, Vickys lover, da debil, the devil, Satan, Racist, red neck, conchie joe, ignorant white trash, Sperm killer, a Virus, Evil, Mean, Rude, and well the list goes on ..

now which is it .. is he a homophobe or one of the above? :confused:

or we talking bout someone else :D


LOL


somebody else.......accept the red neck part :shaky:

:cheers:

When Coretta Scott King, died in her sleep overnight on Jan. 30 at age 78, America lost one of its most eloquent and forceful activists for gay and lesbian rights. That statement might surprise some readers, and anger others, who primarily remember Mrs. King, the wife of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as a heroine in the fight for racial justice.

But for more than a decade, Mrs. King was also an unflinching advocate for the equal treatment of gay and lesbian people. She spoke out against the ban on gays in the military, testified on behalf of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and came out in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry. She repeatedly addressed gay and lesbian rights groups and rallies, and spoke valiantly in support of gay causes. Even when it was controversial and unpopular among other black civil rights leaders, Mrs. King did not waiver. Indeed, members of her own family remain split on the issue of gay and lesbian rights, with some descendants of Martin Luther King Jr. vocally opposed to gay and lesbian civil rights.

Some black leaders, many of whom have their roots in the black churches, continue to organize actively against gay and lesbian rights, supposedly on moral grounds. Some of them even use Dr. Martin Luther King's name in their crusades. But no one knew the late civil rights leader like his own wife, and she adamantly maintained that the principles she and her husband established and fought for all their lives must apply to all groups, including gay and lesbian people.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said in March 1998. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

Her history and her standing in the African-American community made her a particularly formidable ally. While many African-American leaders virulently oppose equating the black civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, Mrs. King embraced the obvious parallels. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," she said in a speech in Chicago in April 1998, just days before the 30th anniversary of her late husband's assassination. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

Though the phrase "human rights" is perhaps so over-used today as to have lost its meaning, Mrs. King was a true champion of that notion. And she made it clear that her vision included gay and lesbian people.

"Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender or ethnic discrimination," she remarked in a speech at the November 2000 Creating Change conference, a gay rights convention held annually by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

The link (http://www.alternet.org/rights/31736/)

LOL
somebody else.......accept the red neck part :shaky:
:cheers:


well okay .. but SpamStopper's neck is pale white right now from lack of sunlight, he is live like a vampire these days ... :D

SpamStopper loves all people also, even wat-ya-ma-call-him. :hammer:

You homophobes are some ignant people.....pure stupidity. It's almost satisfying in itself to think what blind simple and ignorant lives you must live.
almost.
What is it that makes them ignorant because they refuse the idea of homosexuality?? Ignorance means a lack of knowledge, but not accepting or condoning that lifestyle how does that make one ignorant. If you cannot show what knowledge this persons are lacking then please use a word with its appropriate meaning. Also we all are ignorant on something, tho some round here tink dey know more den der encyclopedia, thesaurus and dictionary combined

When Coretta Scott King, died in her sleep overnight on Jan. 30 at age 78, America lost one of its most eloquent and forceful activists for gay and lesbian rights. That statement might surprise some readers, and anger others, who primarily remember Mrs. King, the wife of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as a heroine in the fight for racial justice.

But for more than a decade, Mrs. King was also an unflinching advocate for the equal treatment of gay and lesbian people. She spoke out against the ban on gays in the military, testified on behalf of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and came out in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry. She repeatedly addressed gay and lesbian rights groups and rallies, and spoke valiantly in support of gay causes. Even when it was controversial and unpopular among other black civil rights leaders, Mrs. King did not waiver. Indeed, members of her own family remain split on the issue of gay and lesbian rights, with some descendants of Martin Luther King Jr. vocally opposed to gay and lesbian civil rights.

Some black leaders, many of whom have their roots in the black churches, continue to organize actively against gay and lesbian rights, supposedly on moral grounds. Some of them even use Dr. Martin Luther King's name in their crusades. But no one knew the late civil rights leader like his own wife, and she adamantly maintained that the principles she and her husband established and fought for all their lives must apply to all groups, including gay and lesbian people.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said in March 1998. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

Her history and her standing in the African-American community made her a particularly formidable ally. While many African-American leaders virulently oppose equating the black civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, Mrs. King embraced the obvious parallels. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," she said in a speech in Chicago in April 1998, just days before the 30th anniversary of her late husband's assassination. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

Though the phrase "human rights" is perhaps so over-used today as to have lost its meaning, Mrs. King was a true champion of that notion. And she made it clear that her vision included gay and lesbian people.

"Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender or ethnic discrimination," she remarked in a speech at the November 2000 Creating Change conference, a gay rights convention held annually by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

The link (http://www.alternet.org/rights/31736/)
I hear you and wonder if you think that Corretta Scott's opinions and those of her late husband are so wise as to impress the Most High God? It is not only the Word of God but the historical records of every great empire which condems the practice of HOMOSEXUALITY as the precursor to ruin.

You may argue as strongly as you wish but in the end your protests will not contribute to the continuity nor prosperity of the tiny nation now known to the world as The Bahamas.

While chat groups delight in the continuous idle talk about the rights of Gays to marry and adopt children, the God of our nation is already designing a plan to render us extinct. Check the record, there are many tribes of people whose customs and languages no longer exist on this planet for lesser insults to God.

Posted from another thread, juss thought y'all might find it interesting as it relates to the topic being discussed, feel free to comment.
Thanks
JD

Genx, I totally Concur, I can guarantee my house, my car, my couple dollars in da bank, and all of my worldly possesions that we will never have a Public Debate opened to the Public by the PLP or FNM before during or after an election. Better yet, I would even state that I can guarantee on my li** that The Right Honourable Perry Christie, The Right Honourable Hubert Ingraham, or any future Leader of the PLP or FNM, and its members will never go on International or National T.V. to answer the questions put forth by Lyle Bethel, the open Public or anyone else who is asked questions similar to what the Jamaican PM was asked.
That is because there is a distinct separation of church and state in our parliamentary democracy. The Bahamian Constitution guarantees it, Thank God... :hammer:

And as far as Lyle Bethe goes, who ordained him the "moral voice" of authority in Bahamian Society... I strongly suggest that he concerns himself about the "moral aptitude" of his fellow clergymen. Here are same sample questions that Mr. Bethel could place on a moral questionnaire for himself and his fellow clergymen: :footmouth

Have you ever been arrested for sexually assaulting anyone who you were suppose to be providing pastoral counselling?

Have you ever been caught by the police in a parked car late at night, naked, with your "pants down", with a women who was not your spouse?

Were you ever blackmailed by a male counselee who took illicit photograph's of you and taped recording of you "talking dirty'" to him?

Have you ever been named as a party in a divorce case by the husband of a woman you were suppose to be providing pastoral counselling?

Whether we agree or disagree with what the Jamaican PM has stated, at least we know where he stands because right or wrong, if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.
I suppose the same thing could be said of Adolf Hitler... :taped2:

I personally will never agree with the Gay/Lesbian agenda of "EXTINCTION" just as much as SweetHearting, Fornication and any other form of Sin and you are right in regards to the fact that the primary group of those preaching they are being violated is the Gay /Lesbian community in Yard who use Human Rights as a form to promote their Agenda for "EXTINCTION".
..."Extinction"? John, if you could, can you kindly elaborate on your argument here... I fail to see your logic... :sarcastic

My thing is, their are many innocent Men Women and Children in greater numbers being Abused left right and center not only in yard but here in the Bahamas too and I een sugar coatin nuttin, I am a fair man and if I see wrong I will say it as it is.
And among those men and women who are being abused are folks from the GLBT Community... apparently, when it comes to you "seeing wrong" being done to GLBT citizens, you "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'...

http://scott.club365.net/uploaded_images/hear_see_speak_no_evil_hg_wht-718289.gif

Just like how I dont have the right to impose/force my Heterosexual agenda of "REPRODUCTION" to any Adult, I feel that Homosexuals should also not have do the opposite "EXTINCTION" as well.
John, I lost you again on the "EXTINCTION" thing, can you break this down for me, or as Denzel Washington said in "Philadelphia", "explain it to me as if I'm a six year old child"? :footmouth

We can give our opinions but no one should force anyone to do something or use the innocent as a doormat to promote our agenda.
Okey.... :rolleyes:

Nature is Nature, every homosexual/lesbian should ask themselves this question, how did they get here, how were they produced, how were they born, If Adam and Eve were Gay, we would not be here today.
Newsflash, many gay folks do have their own biological children... human reproduction is not exclusive to heterosexuals... PM me if you want me to break this down for you... :sarcastic

Fact is Fact, its not my opinion, a man and a women reproduce (excluding the fact that one of them or even both are sterile which is also natural but unfortunate), a man and a man does not reproduce, a woman and a woman does not reproduce, nothing to do with Religion, just Sceintific Fact.Biology 101, revisited... Thank you for that edification, but what does this have to do with GLBT folk having the right to same-sex marriages? :confused:

We all owe it to our existence, we have to be fruitfull and multiply or else we will regress and eventually die out as an endangered species and inevitably become "EXTINCT" especially with the fact that Aids/Cancer/Diabetes/Obesity/Crime etc is also heavilly stagnating our abilty to grow as a Country...
Your argument is so flawed, I am exhausted trying to figure where to begin a rebuttal...or if offering on is even worth it... :taped2:

I work with many Fornicators, Sweethearts, Homosexuals, Lesbians and in my opinion it seems like Homosexuality/Lesbianism is the primary focus of individuals who claim to be the voice of morality with Sweethearting and Fornication being swept under the carpet or mentioned much less and that is just as bad as the Homo-Sexuals using Human Rights as their form of the promotion of "EXTINCTION" but hear this, even though they all have a right to exist, no one including myself is perfect, my opinion is, it is something that will always exist.
Okey....: :board2:

We need not to continue to spread Hate/Violence against anyone or use Human Rights Violations as a form of pushing the Gay/Homosexual Agenga of "EXTINCTION" because Homosexuals/Lesbians exist by choice
I beg to differ, John... You seem like a smart man, I challenge you to do the research for yourself...sexual orientation is NOT a choice. :hammer:

I hate no one including Homo-Sexuals, Hetero-Sexuals, Fornicators, Lesbians, Sweethearters, I chose to Live in Love, but I simply wish that we all could use Biology and Science as proof of how to reproduce, reduce the risk of STD's and to prevent the "EXTINCTION" of the Human Race.
Peace and Love to All
JD
John, it seems that you just LOVE eveyone... :sarcastic

I suppose the same thing could be said of Adolf Hitler...
What de rass does hitler have 2 do wid u n john convo, why is it when ppl try to discredit or make someone seem bad,evil, sadistic. They envoke the memory of this man. Please their is no need for these silly mind games. If his/her argument is flawed or your opinion holds more weight, then these little tricks are rendered useless. Another example of this is some bahamians when an argument ensues and one person does not like the opinion of the other they will say "U is highsun aye?" most time the conversation has nothing to do with the persons point of view as if these persons have a birth defect that is contagious. Another example of this baiting is in the international arena anyone with a dissenting view of Israel is viewed as an anti-semite, this trash/nonsense of discreditin ppl by labels or relations to persons or group needs to stop. If they are so bad they will expose themselves time and again in what they write. LEts do better

As far as I can see, basic human rights are satisfied. And this is based on erudition and sober second thought -- not a gut reaction. I have no problem with making gays feel better about their place in society as long as it doesn't involve the public purse or family law. Get it> There is a reason why marriage court is called "FAMILY" Law. Common Law is now just being developed with gay divorce, and the courts are overloaded as is.
So you have my thoughts -- nothing more. I don't drink Kool Aid -- that is reserved for PLPs and Jonestownies. Chanti chanti chanti
Marriage in itself may not be a basic human right by the definition (illustration) that you gave BUT the denial of marriage based soley on the premise of sexual orientation is discriminatory AND discrimination in ANY form is the trampling on of someone's (in this case a group of people) rights...Just as a JOB neccesarily isn't a human right...BUT the denial of employment based on either race, sex, or sexual orientation is an infringement of human rights...

As for the "public purse"....don't gays as tax paying citizens of the Bahamas contribute JUST AS equally to it??...What precludes them from benefiting just as equally??...Oh yeah DISCRIMINATION...

Family court and marriage court are synonymous obvioulsy based on a premise that married couples after being wed become "families"...Gay couples adopt the same philosophy when they get married...They "become" families and as I mentioned before contribute just as well to society as hetereosexual couples...

Thanks again for the point of clarification. My thoughts on the matter of Bahamians wishing to challenge existing legislation while seeking to redefine the model of family is in agreement with a recent article by Mr. Gorman Bannister in his BLACKBELT which suggests that Gay's Should Live Quietly and Die Decently! Sounded like good advice to me.
BLACKBELT and good advice don't in any circumstance equate...but I digress...

That is exactly what is wrong with this country... We are so misguided into thinking the way to solve our problems and to ease our discomfort is to sweep things under the carpet and pretend normal..."oh if the gays would just stay in the closet...God may just pass us by with his wrath..."...Utter nonsense.

...When in fact this has nothing to do with God or Religion...it has to do with our personal dislikes and the things that makes us (for whatever reason) uncomfortable...Christian zealots have used the "God's wrath" smoke screen for centuries to justify all manner of evil/injustices against people...The fact remains that the God YOU serve even tells you to "seek out your salvation for yourself"...concern yourself not with the actions of other people...your faith is one personal to YOU...it is a reflection of your innermost feelings toward YOUR God...It should however in no way force me to beckon to what YOU deem (today) to be "Christian"...or inadvertently trample upon my rights as a Bahamian....Either that or we simply remove from the constitution the part dealing with religious freedom....Because really and truly that is what we are talking about here....Hysteria tactics used to blind the masses into thinking if we don't adapt the Christian way and condemn homosexuality we will all be doomed...You can find anyone else on this site to debate religion vs. homosexuality part 156...But I will not...The crux of the matter is and the purpose of this thread (I assume) is to debate LAW as it relates to Gay Marriage in the Bahamas...

What de rass does hitler have 2 do wid u n john convo,
I think the comment wasn't an attack on John but the relevance lies in the paradox that John himself created in speaking about the Jamaican PM...

Whether someone is right or wrong...at least we know where he stands???:confused:......Ascertaining whether what someone did is Right or Not is far more important than just acknowledging their view...

Should I get all glad and excited based on the fact that he took a stand??....Nevermind the stand that he took and continues to take would have serious implications for Jamaica's international image and likely to incite more violence against gays in the country...Nevermind that Jamaica is renowned for VIOLENCE AND MURDER against gays...and the PM's divisive stance creates the breeding ground for further violence...And you don't get the Hitler analogy?...:dgi: