Oh, my, Yardman, I must have touched a sensitive nerve here... If John Doe was referring to what I believe were anti-gay remarks made by the Jamaican PM, then the reference to Adolf Hitler was most relverent... :taped2:
As you well know, Hitler was a repressed homosexual who was extremely homophobic and ordered the extermination of not only Jews and Blacks, but homosexuals as well during his reign of terror in Nazi Germandy... When a nation's leader shows intolerance for minorities within his country, it could have catastrophic results for those being oppressed or scapegoated... :hammer:
The difference however is that hitler called for the destruction of the people he disliked, while mr golding stated he would not have them in his inner circle knowingly, he also stated that in his country the general consensus is to not accept that lifestyle. I guess if that is then he is showing the will of the people. I dont get sensitive over other people, gata worry bout my own damn self.

Denial of Marriage is discrimination ??
YOUR rights are trampled? That's it -- my rights are being trampled. I cannot use the Ladies Washroom whenever I want. Other people woman have these rights, and I am being discriminated against.
Help help .. I am being oppressed.
I applied for the job of a bra-fitter in a department store, and I was turned down because I am a man-- denied my basic human rights to providing for my family.
Help help .. I am being oppressed.
My girlfriend is going to sue, because she is not allowed to be a sperm donor. She is being discriminated against.
Help help .. she is being oppressed.
I can't earn $40,000 as a surrogate parent and carry someone else's baby to term. They said that I was too tall. Help help .. I am being oppressed.
If you don't qualify because of sexual orientation -- that is not discrimination.
SMT...Lurker you disappoint me...

Your analogies are erroneous because they are not measured equally...

Laws/Regulations pertaining to public restrooms are neither discriminatory or an infringement upon the rights of males and females because they are separated and regulated equally...Whereas a male has a male bathroom while a female has EQUAL rights and privileges to a corresponding female bathroom....Hence my argument...GLBT should have as consenting adults in committed unions EQUAL rights as heterosexuals who do the same...

As for your other (hypothetical) analogies ... all are irrelevant (sorta comical) but non-sensual in context...as it pertains to the personal preference of a private enterprise or private citizens...thier denial of your application based on the fact that you are a man is far different than the government sanctioning a law that based on sexual preference, gender or race precludes you from basic human rights....A store has the right to PREFER a male over a female for a position just as Parents have the right to PREFER a shorter surrogate parent...But in context are we talking about personal or company preferences or law and it's equality...??Your attempts to trivialise the conversation has been noted though...

It is true that not all restrictions are discriminatory. For example, when a restriction is imposed on public interest grounds for instance public health grounds. But it cannot be considered correct that 'as long as homosexuals have exactly the same legal choices of marriage partners as does the rest of society, there is no bona fide case for discrimination.' If I could use an analogy, take for instance a racial practice prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying. If we state that black people, while still having exactly the same legal choices of marriage partners as does the rest of society, there is therefore no bona fide case for discrimination. This can be seen as a smoke screen to mask the clear cut discrimination that is seen in a policy prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying. Bringing the situation closer to home, if the law at its highest level namely the Constitution of The Bahamas provides for equality by conversely prohibiting discrimination then such a policy cannot stand. And in the application of the law, marriage is allowed for heterosexual couples rather than homosexual couples, then the law cannot be seen to be evenly applied. There is no public health ground to preclude two monogamous homosexual lovers from marrying. That's simple discrimination.
Also, I discuss legal and logical technicalities, but I'm a christian. I see nothing wrong with allowing gays the right to marry. I'm straight, and as a straight person I still dont see anything wrong with allowing them to marry. The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. But Jesus says we fulfill the law through love. In the spirit of love, let all persons have the full effect and benefit of the law equally. I can consider no argument more powerful than this. Let them marry if they wish. If it doesnt concern you, then mind ya own business.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
:hammer:

Your attempts to trivialise the conversation has been noted though...

To me, gay marriage is a non-issue because it is oxymoronic. Same sex marriage is anti-matter to what marriage is supposed to be. Not for religious reasons, moral reasons, emotional reasons or any other basis, but just on pure logic. The nub of what marriage is, is a union between a man and a woman. Anything other permutation or combination is contrary to the basic premise of marriage.

Gays wanting the rights of married couples, is trivial, illogical balderdash. That is my point of view and I am entitled to it. It doesn't make me homophobic, or discriminatory or ignorant or anything.

I am not going to run on with you because we have been there before and it proved to be a waste of time!!
But I will say this. I believe the bible in its entirety and it's too sad that you don't.. But I say that's your lost!!! Look up the KJV bible and read Romans 1: 20-32.....
I will not argue at the world's standard, I live by a higher standard which is in CHRIST!!!
come now, u should know SpamStopper by now, he is anything BUT lost.

:hammer::hammer:

What disappointed me is that a person, who was new on this forum came in and expressed her feelings and in the normal fashion of Vicky was run off.

I doubt we will see Cassy again on Bahamas Issues.

As I have also known her prior to joining here, my messages to her (outside of BI) have been unanswered. All I got was a BYE message.

Way to go

Vicky needs to be permanently BANNED

To me, gay marriage is a non-issue because it is oxymoronic. Same sex marriage is anti-matter to what marriage is supposed to be. Not for religious reasons, moral reasons, emotional reasons or any other basis, but just on pure logic. The nub of what marriage is, is a union between a man and a woman. Anything other permutation or combination is contrary to the basic premise of marriage.

Gays wanting the rights of married couples, is trivial, illogical balderdash. That is my point of view and I am entitled to it. It doesn't make me homophobic, or discriminatory or ignorant or anything.
Welcome Mr. Lurker:

You are right on time to help explain to EbonyAppollo, et al., why the landmark US Supreme Court decision of June 12, 1967 in the Case of Loving v. Virginia which overturned the laws against interracial marriage, still in effect in 16 US states at that time, is not a sound basis for their duplicitous human rights arguments.

It is a very clever strategy of the Gay community to attempt to link their shakky legal protestations to already established legal precedents won during the era of Civil Rights / Racism atrocities. But the devil is a liar!

The existence of a man like Barack obama is the demonstration of why laws preventing Blacks and Caucasians from marrying were evil and inhumane. When I read recently of Mrs. Loving's death I wept like a baby, while thanking God for her faithfullness in appropriating this landmark human achievement with the full support of Mr. Loving, ofcourse. For persons interested in the full details of the court case, the link is posted here for your information: http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp

Originally Posted by EbonyApollo today is the following diatribe:

"If I could use an analogy, take for instance a racial practice prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying. If we state that black people, while still having exactly the same legal choices of marriage partners as does the rest of society, there is therefore no bona fide case for discrimination. This can be seen as a smoke screen to mask the clear cut discrimination that is seen in a policy prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying. Bringing the situation closer to home, if the law at its highest level namely the Constitution of The Bahamas provides for equality by conversely prohibiting discrimination then such a policy cannot stand. And in the application of the law, marriage is allowed for heterosexual couples rather than homosexual couples, then the law cannot be seen to be evenly applied. There is no public health ground to preclude two monogamous homosexual lovers from marrying. ....... but I'm a christian. I see nothing wrong with allowing gays the right to marry. I'm straight, and as a straight person I still dont see anything wrong with allowing them to marry. The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. But Jesus says we fulfill the law through love. In the spirit of love, let all persons have the full effect and benefit of the law equally. I can consider no argument more powerful than this. Let them marry if they wish. If it doesnt concern you, then mind ya own business.", he rudely concludes.

I'm going to pray that the eyes of your understanding will be opened to the Truth Mr. Ebony and refer you to Zecharia 8:16 which states: These are the things you are to do : Speak the truth to each other and render true and sound judgements in your courts...". This is a most important Scriptural warning as I sense the dishonest agenda of the "Deceived" attempting to lure our Judiciary into the marriage meddling scenario recently played out in California where a handful of judges decided to implement laws rather than to simply interpret them

May I also refer you to a quote from Charles R. Lawrence 111 in 1967 who said:"We are where we are, with the huge bloody problem...., because of a history." Finally, as I attend a party commemorating the landmark Loving v. Virginia decision here in California on June 12, I will request that the gathering of 'Believers' cover our Bahamas in prayer as they simultaneously ask God to protect the life of Barack Obama and his family.

Dear Corabell:
Thank you so much for posting this erroneous data, disguised as NEWS which has allowed for such edifying dialogue. Firstly, in Ms. Erin Green's assertion that:" Human beings have the right to be in relationships with whom they want,"....is where the spirit of Deception enters and takes center stage.
The truth of the matter is: The marriage laws in The Bahamas 'are not discriminatory as they do not prevent anyone of legal age from marrying. However, no citizen is permitted to marry whomever we love, without any restriction. One cannot marry his or her mother, father, daughter, son, cousin, niece, nephew or the littlle 12 year old next door, no matter how overwhelming the love and desire for them might be.
Restrictions are not necessarily discriminatory. As long as homosexuals have exactly the same legal choices of marriage partners as does the rest of society, there is no bona fide case for discrimination.' (Excerpted today from The Orange Couny Register, CA USA)
F.Y.I.

Lady Russell

you of all people should have had enough erin greene 'in ya mout'
you tired a calling that girl name
she een fire you on live tv
she een even tell hubert to fire you at victory rally
she definately een make you gay

I dont even know where to begin. Lady Russell, I dont know what you were talking about. You cite a case called Loving v Virginia. Let me tell you from jump, I never heard of the case, you didnt give a citation, a precis, I never read the case, and never avowed myself to the reasoning or the decision itself. And how dare you call my arguments duplicitous without delving into the actual reasoning itself. Or did you suppose to cite scripture and then obfuscate the truth by way of callin Barack Obama all up through the argument?


The bases for my position do not stem from American case law, but from English common law. I cited the Bahamas Constitution, I referred particularly to the right against discrimination. Unsurprisingly, your arguments not only did not address this Article (Art 26) but also did not confine themselves to the four corners of the Bahamian Constitution. Added to that, there is not juris scintilla (a spark of law) to support your argument. Also, when you use the Bible to argue against Gay Marriage, cite also the provisions that support the position. I like to say judge each case on its particular facts. Have you ever, ever given any thought to the fact that gays might have a valid position? That maybe our laws do blow hot and cold. Maybe our laws do speak about equality, or conversely a right against discrimination on the one hand, but yet preclude a creed of persons in The Bahamas from the rights which we all enjoy, and unjustly at that?


I dont want to change your mind, or change your value system, but I ask that you keep an openmind and consider. The lowest segments of our law viz the common law is the last bastion for the position that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Our highest law however has enshrined with it the principles of equality and evenhandedness in the application of the law. Something's gotta give. And I define the issue thus, either the common law prescription of marriage is saved law under the Constitution, or the Constitution is read generously and purposively so as to give Gays equal protection under the law. Now, to respond to what you said about judges implementing law rather than merely interpreting them. Whoever told you that the only province of the judiciary was to interpret the law? The courts administer justice judicially, even if that means taking the Constitution and rewriting the law so that it accords with that solemn and supervening document.


There's no need for me to quote scripture, except to say in all thy getting, get knowledge.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

Lady Russell

you of all people should have had enough erin greene 'in ya mout'
you tired a calling that girl name
she een fire you on live tv
she een even tell hubert to fire you at victory rally
she definately een make you gay
My Dear Postmortem:

Only on this rare ocasion will I condescend to have a conversation with a person who has declared themselves "Already Dead!" Okey Dokey!

Your level of contribution as the self-appointed defender of Ms. Erin Green is an insult. Please have Ms. Green, as the presenter at the Press Conference of which this Thread is titled, to answer for herself. Whenever one of you 'initiates' attempt to promote your losing cause, it becomes apparent that you are not sufficiently well informed to defend against simple human logic and totally destroyed by The Word of God.

So pleeeeaaaasssseeee! Restrain yourself from making Gay accusations in my direction. This was not one of the items I had to unlearn.

Thank you kindly.

I dont even know where to begin. Lady Russell, I dont know what you were talking about. You cite a case called Loving v Virginia. Let me tell you from jump, I never heard of the case, you didnt give a citation, a precis, I never read the case, and never avowed myself to the reasoning or the decision itself. And how dare you call my arguments duplicitous without delving into the actual reasoning itself. Or did you suppose to cite scripture and then obfuscate the truth by way of callin Barack Obama all up through the argument?


The bases for my position do not stem from American case law, but from English common law. I cited the Bahamas Constitution, I referred particularly to the right against discrimination. Unsurprisingly, your arguments not only did not address this Article (Art 26) but also did not confine themselves to the four corners of the Bahamian Constitution. Added to that, there is not juris scintilla (a spark of law) to support your argument. Also, when you use the Bible to argue against Gay Marriage, cite also the provisions that support the position. I like to say judge each case on its particular facts. Have you ever, ever given any thought to the fact that gays might have a valid position? That maybe our laws do blow hot and cold. Maybe our laws do speak about equality, or conversely a right against discrimination on the one hand, but yet preclude a creed of persons in The Bahamas from the rights which we all enjoy, and unjustly at that?


I dont want to change your mind, or change your value system, but I ask that you keep an openmind and consider. The lowest segments of our law viz the common law is the last bastion for the position that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Our highest law however has enshrined with it the principles of equality and evenhandedness in the application of the law. Something's gotta give. And I define the issue thus, either the common law prescription of marriage is saved law under the Constitution, or the Constitution is read generously and purposively so as to give Gays equal protection under the law. Now, to respond to what you said about judges implementing law rather than merely interpreting them. Whoever told you that the only province of the judiciary was to interpret the law? The courts administer justice judicially, even if that means taking the Constitution and rewriting the law so that it accords with that solemn and supervening document.


There's no need for me to quote scripture, except to say in all thy getting, get knowledge.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
Got to run out to get Tacos, but if your still up in 15 mins, I promise a worthy response.
Thanks

I wait with bated breath for your return.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

My Dear Postmortem:
Only on this rare ocasion will I condescend to have a conversation with a person who has declared themselves "Already Dead!" Okey Dokey!
Your level of contribution as the self-appointed defender of Ms. Erin Green is an insult. Please have Ms. Green, as the presenter at the Press Conference of which this Thread is titled, to answer for herself. Whenever one of you 'initiates' attempt to promote your losing cause, it becomes apparent that you are not sufficiently well informed to defend against simple human logic and totally destroyed by The Word of God.
So pleeeeaaaasssseeee! Restrain yourself from making Gay accusations in my direction. This was not one of the items I had to unlearn.
Thank you kindly.

my love
it is you who are already dead
i just deliver the prognosis
:escape: :jawdroop:

by the way
i am in no way affiliated with RAB
i'm not even sure i'm gay
but i know i don't like you
you are not a very nice person

but i know i don't like you
you are not a very nice person

amen

I wait with bated breath for your return.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
I'm back and tickled pink by postmortems prognosis. I'll just need a few minutes to marshall my 26 soldiers of the alphabet in order to respond. Thank you for your patience.
Oh, you are witty.

Regards,