Now I don't quite know where to begin in all of my objections to your well-edited script of half-truths. But let's take it from the bottom up. Would you please be so kind as to cite any Scriptural arguments that support Gay marriage as quoted in your post? Daniel and Ashpenaz. David and Johnathan.
Secondly, my reference to Barack Obama is simply to cite his emergence as the personification of God's response to the outmoded practice of racial segration in the Marriage Act of many states in the US. My mention of him (Obama) is simply a testimony to the power of God to take that which was formerly the least in a nation and make it the chief cornerstone, if He so chooses.
As I included the link of the Loving v. Virgnia case, I saw no need to pretend at being a Lawyer. You mention Article (26) of The Bahamas Constitution, seemingly to justify your arguments regarding Descrimination in our Laws which demand that marriage be performed between a man and a woman, and this is, in my opinion, simply your attempt a clever semantics. ....."Race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed cited as just causes for judicial review may not successfully be stretched to mean, men who believe themselves to be women or women who imagine themselves to be men.
If and when you convince any of our Bahamian Judges to forget their oaths and to ignore the Preamble of The Constitution of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas which reads: ....And Whereas the People of this Family of Islands recognise that the preservation of their Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law; in favour of your arguments, rest assured that the Bahamian people will target the fear of God at such Judicial arrogance.
It is indeed a pleasure to exchange views with you. May I suggest that you use you knowledge to edify our people, as you are extraordinarily gifted. What The Bahamas needs most is persons of goodwilll who aspire to be Statesmen rather than merely- popular- politicians. P.S. Wisdom and Understanding are far more desirable virtues that all the world's Knowledge. Proverbs 4:7.
God Bless!

How can I join this Human Rights project? I think it's a legal fraternity wide diffidence and our judges are the leaders of the scardy cat pack. I think if we take an intentionalist approach to the Constitution that we will actually take a step backward in our human rights adjudication. The Privy Council has been very strong in this area charging ahead with the motto of purposive and generous human rights interpretation to extend rights all across the board. You see, the problem with intentionalist interpretation is that it gives rise to a stagnant approach to human rights and only views fundamental rights and freedoms within the context of the attitudes and predilections of the framers of the Constitution. The Privy Council though have taken the view that the Constitution is a living and organic document that must be construed as broadly as possible to give the widest amount of rights the widest possible ambit.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
It is rather unfortunate that the legal profession has yet to forge its "purpose" in today's Bahamian Society... Why do you suppose the legal fraternity, in general, continues to be reserved and unassertive in the face of blatant human rights violation in our society? :dgi:

Why is there very little activism on the part of lawyers, a reluctance to form advocacy organisations, to fight for the rights of the down trodden, the dispossessed and the marginalised in our society...? :voodoo:

In spite of all this, I am still of the opinion that the Courts will ultimately play a key role in the advances of human rights in our country... And I concur with your position that we should NOT take an intentionalist approach to the Constitution, and my reference to the framers of our constitution, having “foresight” to enshrine provisions for the "Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedom of the Individual", was in no way meant to be misconstrued as an endorsement of this approach when interpreting human rights violations. :hammer:

I strongly agree that The Privy Council has been at the forefront in its “purposive and generous" human rights interpretation of the constitution, seeing it as a “living and organic” document... and I maintain that it is the Privy Council who will eventually decide these two legal questions:


In a fair and just society, can homosexuals, be discriminated against, and denied the right to the state legal arrangement of "marriage", when heterosexuals, by law, enjoy these rights and privileges...?


In a fair and just society, can there exist two separate, but "equal" registries, one for heterosexual "marriages", and another for same-sex "unions", and call it equal, under the law. (Assuming, of course, that parliament enacts legislation, to appease critics by, with provisions for same-sex "legal unions", similar to the "Marriage Act" in our Statutory Laws...)

Daniel and Ashpenaz. David and Johnathan.
Not da Vicky weighin in tho.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

Daniel and Ashpenaz. David and Johnathan.

Man this is a major stretch. There is no friggin way that this is gay marriage or even homosexuality. This is all open to interpretation and gays interpret it to suit their own purpose.

It is rather unfortunate that the legal profession has yet to forge its "purpose" in today's Bahamian Society. Why do you suppose the legal fraternity, in general, continues to be reserved and unassertive in the face of blatant human rights violation in our society...? :dgi:
Why is there very little activism on the part of lawyers, a reluctance to form advocacy organisation, to fight for the rights of the down trodden, the dispossessed and the marginalised in our society...? :voodoo:
In spite of all this, I am still of the opinion that the Courts will ultimately play a key role in the advances of human rights in our country... and I concur with your position that we should NOT take an intentionalist approach to the Constitution, and my reference to the framers of our constitution, having “ foresight” to enshrine provisions for the "Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedom of the Individual", was in no way meant to be misconstrued as an endorsement of this approach when interpreting human rights violations... :hammer:
I strongly agree that The Privy Council has been at the forefront in its “purposive” and “generous human rights” interpretation of the constitution, seeing it as a “living and organic” document... and I maintain that it is the Privy Council who will have to eventually decide these two questions:

1. Can homosexuals, in a just and fair society, be discriminated against, and denied the right to the state legal arrangement of "marriage", when heterosexuals, by law, enjoy these very same rights and privileges...? And...
2. [b]Can, in a just and fair society, there exist two separate, but "equal" registries, one for heterosexual "marriages", and another for same-sex "unions", and call it equal, under the law. (This is assuming, of course, that parliament enacts legislation to appease critics by enacting a same-sex "legal union", similar to that of the "Marriage Act" in our Statutory Laws...)

What I like about what you say is that you raise some very interesting and poignant jurisprudential questions. I think that the conservatism of the legal profession is ingrained based on a wide variety of factors. Bahamian lawyers are mostly trained in England and English legal training is coloured with the Victorian conservatism of Sir William Blackstone who posits that custom is the lifeblood of the common law. A fact that I do not disagree with. I love Blackstone. But there are certain realities that we have to face. In the Caribbean the need for development is greater than that of the developed world. Also, the fact of our Caribbean constitutions create an impetus for the quick development of human rights and the prevention of the deprivation of our human rights by the State. Against that background, the instrument of judicial review assumes considerable importance. We have to also look at the fact that the human need is greater in the Caribbean where the cost of living is much higher while the standard of living much lower. Given the special social and economic factors namely our history of slavery, indenture and colonial rule, there is much more of a need to eschew conservative textualism for liberal activism, and this trend is no where more apparent than in our public law.


This is why what you say is absolutely correct, the courts will show the way forward in terms of protection of our fundamental rights and freedoms. But from what I see, our national courts will continue to progress at a snailish pace using conservative, narrow and technical reasoning thereby frustrating human rights adjudication whereas the Privy Council will continue more towards liberal, broad, and generous construction of our human rights provisions. The trend seems to be that common law and statutory restrictions on human rights will continue to be erroded and erased giving way to the broad redress clause of our constitution and the primacy of basic fundamental human rights and freedoms.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

What I like about what you say is that you raise some very interesting and poignant jurisprudential questions. I think that the conservatism of the legal profession is ingrained based on a wide variety of factors. Bahamian lawyers are mostly trained in England and English legal training is coloured with the Victorian conservatism of Sir William Blackstone who posits that custom is the lifeblood of the common law. A fact that I do not disagree with. I love Blackstone. But there are certain realities that we have to face. In the Caribbean the need for development is greater than that of the developed world. Also, the fact of our Caribbean constitutions create an impetus for the quick development of human rights and the prevention of the deprivation of our human rights by the State. Against that background, the instrument of judicial review assumes considerable importance. We have to also look at the fact that the human need is greater in the Caribbean where the cost of living is much higher while the standard of living much lower. Given the special social and economic factors namely our history of slavery, indenture and colonial rule, there is much more of a need to eschew conservative textualism for liberal activism, and this trend is no where more apparent than in our public law.
This is why what you say is absolutely correct, the courts will show the way forward in terms of protection of our fundamental rights and freedoms. But from what I see, our national courts will continue to progress at a snailish pace using conservative, narrow and technical reasoning thereby frustrating human rights adjudication whereas the Privy Council will continue more towards liberal, broad, and generous construction of our human rights provisions. The trend seems to be that common law and statutory restrictions on human rights will continue to be erroded and erased giving way to the broad redress clause of our constitution and the primacy of basic fundamental human rights and freedoms.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~
AMEN AND AMEN...!!! :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

How can I join this Human Rights project? I can put you in contact with the President if you like. I think it's a legal fraternity wide diffidence and our judges are the leaders of the scardy cat pack. I think if we take an intentionalist approach to the Constitution that we will actually take a step backward in our human rights adjudication. The Privy Council has been very strong in this area charging ahead with the motto of purposive and generous human rights interpretation to extend rights all across the board. You see, the problem with intentionalist interpretation is that it gives rise to a stagnant approach to human rights and only views fundamental rights and freedoms within the context of the attitudes and predilections of the framers of the Constitution. The Privy Council though have taken the view that the Constitution is a living and organic document that must be construed as broadly as possible to give the widest amount of rights the widest possible ambit.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

Daniel and Ashpenaz. David and Johnathan.
Thanks for that intervention, Mr. Lurker. I also wish to refer "Vicky" to the Levitical Law books which governed Jewish communities during the time of David and Jonathan, as historical proof of his erroneous translation of the Biblical account of their lives. I am referring to the Biblical account in Leviticus.

One of the most important documents in the lives of all Jews, this segment of the pentateuch provides the foundation for much of what is now considered common Law, but more importantly, the book depicts God's unequivocal requirements regarding moral practices for his people as well as the clear and unchanging standards that were to govern right relationships with others.

Leviticus 18: 22 on the subject of Unlawful Sexual Relations states: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; this is detestable. verse 23 of that same chapter also cites this important note: ,,,'A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; this is perversion.

And so my Dear Vicky, when you and others from your group decide to escalate your activism against the unchanging standards of God, by demanding a license to marry and have sexual relations with your animals because you are madly in love, the answer then as it is now is: Hell No!

This is a portion of the Matrimonial Causes act 125;
Void and Voidable Marriages
20. A husband or wife may present a petition to the court praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void on any of the grounds mentioned in section 21 or 22.
Petition for nullity
21. (1) A marriage shall be void on any of the following grounds:
Void marriage.
(a)
that it is not a valid marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Act;
(b)
that at the time of the marriage, either party was already lawfully married;
(c)
that the parties are not respectively male and female; or
(d)
that in the case of a polygamous marriage entered into outside The Bahamas, either party was domiciled in The Bahamas.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (d) of subsection (1), a marriage may be polygamous although at its inception neither party has any spouse additional to the other.
There you go. Vicky and company needs to rewind and come again.
C refers to a marriage like my wife and I she can Petition for nullity at any time and our marriage is over. Another words after the marriage it is discovered that one has changed their sex.Or in the case of traditions that the couple did not engauge in sex before marriage the couple would not know each others sex until after the marrage. However I am told there are ways that pre op transsexuals can have sex with men and they can't tell the differance. Don't ask me how I don't know.
Reading backwards here as I was away in Barbados for the weekend.

Is everyone in the Bahamas Christian??

That is because there is a distinct separation of church and state in our parliamentary democracy. The Bahamian Constitution guarantees it, Thank God... :hammer:


Not Being Sarcastic but what exactly are you stating?


And as far as Lyle Bethe goes, who ordained him the "moral voice" of authority in Bahamian Society...


No one did or at least I don't know, I sure didn't and I assume you didn't also, if it were me or you, just as we have the right to also draft a questionaire as Mr Bethel did to ask those running for office certain controversial questions, they also have a right to refuse to answer the questions put forth.


Their decision to not answer the question may hurt more than help their chances because the majority of the public will wonder what is there to hide since the public has also has the right to know as much as possible about a person they are going to elect to not only represent them but to make sensitive decisions that can affect each one of our lives.


I strongly suggest that he concerns himself about the "moral aptitude" of his fellow clergymen.


I totally Concur


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?


My answer is no


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?


No


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


No


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?
No


I suppose the same thing could be said of Adolf Hitler... :taped2:
..."Extinction"? John, if you could, can you kindly elaborate on your argument here... I fail to see your logic... :sarcastic


No Problem, Extinction in my previous post was use in this way. If a man has sex with a man, whether they are in love with each other or not, whether they are married or not, they can never produce a child together because a man is not designed to have a child, nothing to do with love or marriage, that just Biological fact.

I know this thread is referring to Gays/Lesbians having the right to marry but again, as I stated before, I am writing in regards to Human Biology. When those same two married, in love Gay Men are both deceased, they did not produce a child who is Biologically theirs, so they have not contributed to the extension of their family name or more importantly, to the extension of their species and even if they adopt a child, the child has to be created by a man and a woman which is the natural way, excluding Artificial Insimination or Invitro for my politically correct folks.


If you have one male Siberian Tiger and one Female Siberian Tiger left on this planet and they have cubs of both genders, they would have saved their species. On the other hand, If their were only two male Siberian Tigers left on this planet and they both die, well thats it.
Even though we humans are 6billion+ people away from extinction, if every human male and every human female was to become Gay or become a Lesbian, within a matter of time that would be the end of our race, (unless scientist use un-natural methods which off course those with money would be the only ones left on this planet.) We owe it the existence of our species to reproduce (again nothing to do with love our marriage or anyone who is sterile).


I guess my question is how were you and I born, I know I came from my Father and my Mother but if they were Gay/Lesbian, we would not be having this conversation.


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'...


I can guarantee you that I condone no form of Abuse (Verbal or Physical) to any human being because of their SEXUAL ORIENTATION, COLOUR, SEX, NATIONALITY, RELIGION ETC. I hope that answers that for you, but just incase, when it comes to Homo-sexuals/Lesbians who state that they are being Discriminated, my point is this: I am a very Tall Black Bahamian Man and I had not choice in four things, my height, my colour, my nationality, my sex.

My concern is when Homosexuals/Lesbians try to incorporate their decision to live that life style with factors that are beyond yours or my control. I could not have chosen to be a Short White American Female. Off Course I do not believe that a Heterosexual should not be chosen for a job that a Homosexual is more qualified for because of thier sexual orientation because that is Discrimination point blank but Sexual Orientation is a decision made by the individual who chooses to live that live style and can be changed on the spot by a woman deciding to not be interested emotionally and sexually with another woman and vice versa for a man, not the other factors mentioned above.


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


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


I hope my above comment answered it for you.
Okey.... :rolleyes:
Newsflash, many gay folks

((((women who have given birth (YES), what about men who gave birth?)))):confused:


do have their own biological children... human reproduction is not exclusive to heterosexuals...


That true because any Male Gay couple can arrange for a woman (Straight or Gay) to use sperm from one of the Gay men to have a child for them but can a Female lesbian couple use any one of their sperm for a man (Straight or Gay) so that the man can give birth to the Lesbian Couple's child?:confused:


I have yet to see a man give birth to a child because men do not have eggs, experience PMS or have a womb which leads to a Vagi** so I 100% disagree with you on that. If you know of any man who did, you would be a Trillionaire with more money than Bill Gates on the cover of Time Magazine with Doctors all around the world refering to you as someone with the only historical and scientific break through bigger than someone who was to find a cure for AIDS/HIV.


PM me if you want me to break this down for you... :sarcastic
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?


Nothing actually as I am "Again" going to not only to inform you but everyone else on this thread that I am posting Based on BIOLOGY well I guess BIOLOGY 101 as you stated. However, your question did give me a new idea. If their is nothing on the Bahamas Constitution Preventing Gays/Lesbians from getting married, then why is it the no Homosexual has gotten married in the Bahamas as yet? No seriously, without any sarcasm, I would like someone to answer that for me as I am not being smart or sarcastic?
:confused:


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:


Understood, as I respect you and your opinion, but again, I have no intention of ever disrespecting you in anyway but I do value your opinion so I would like for you to respond if you decide to reconsider.


Okey....: :board2:
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:


Before I answer that, can you in anyway prove that to me?


John, it seems that you just LOVE eveyone... :sarcastic


TRUTH, Love is the answer my friend, the reason why we are suffering in this world is because of hate (e.g. those who have to ability to decrease how much they charge for a barrell of Oil) because if they had love for the humans first instead of Money/Billions/Profit, we would not be suffering like we are today.
Mind you we all have to make money to survive but to rape the world and brag about your ridiculous profits is just insane.


Oh by the Way, Hitler is one of the Scummiest Beast who ever existed but I did not in anyway try to promote the exticntion of any race and I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

One More Thing, my dear friend Songbird shares my view in a much shorter version which I will post below:

songbird
Member

Posted By Songbird:
I am not a homophobe. I also disagree with your beliefs and i also question your morality and your ethics. But I let bygones be bygones, and just ask questions. I have never called anyone ignorant. If i was ignorant i would have called fire and brimstone on you from long time.
Once again, i do not think that you are ignorant.

THAT my dear, is how we differ.

Is everyone in the Bahamas Christian??
No, but Christians are in the majority and we are talking about the Democratic, Sovereign nation of Bahamas whose Mission Statement declares firstly..."An abiding respect for Christian values...followed by...the Rule of Law."

Further, the supreme instrument governing this Bahamas - The Constitution- continues:
Now Know Ye Therefore:
We the Inheritors of and Successors to this Family of Islands, recognising the Supremacy of God .....

While I'd be the first to point out that your citizenship as a Bahamian guarantees you the right to freely reject God and embrace whatever Belief System you may wish, but I would be disobedient if I did not mention that God respects your right to choose as wel,l and has extended a further provision to you, as his creation called GRACE.

In other words you could be as confused, defiant and on your way to Hell, as you are right now, yet the desire of His heart is that you change your thinking (REPENT) and accept The Lord Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior (Salvation). I'm going to keep you in Prayer Vicky. As I write this post I am becomming aware that you were harmed by persons whom you trusted and the last thing that you need from me is one of my Ms. Irma Brown's beatings.

So let's see the power of God to correct and Save.

God Bless You!

Thanks for that intervention, Mr. Lurker. 1 Samuel 18 (King James Version)

1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

2And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

2 Samuel 1:26 (King James Version)

26I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
you can try all you like this is a same sex union and more so a marriage as to unite 2 peoples by covenant is a marriage.

# Daniel 1:9
Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs

Is not a prince a man and what is Daniel? Also what would be tender love shared by 2.


I also wish to refer "Vicky" to the Levitical Law books which governed Jewish communities during the time of David and Jonathan, as historical proof of his erroneous translation of the Biblical account of their lives. I am referring to the Biblical account in Leviticus.
One of the most important documents in the lives of all Jews, this segment of the pentateuch provides the foundation for much of what is now considered common Law, but more importantly, the book depicts God's unequivocal requirements regarding moral practices for his people as well as the clear and unchanging standards that were to govern right relationships with others.
Leviticus 18: 22 on the subject of Unlawful Sexual Relations states: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; this is detestable. verse 23 of that same chapter also cites this important note: ,,,'A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; this is perversion. Do you live by the laws of Moses?? Have you ever read the last verse in Leviticus.
And so my Dear Vicky, when you and others from your group decide to escalate your activism against the unchanging standards of God, by demanding a license to marry and have sexual relations with your animals Can't you discuss something with out insults such as that how very christian of you. We are talking consenting human adults. because you are madly in love, the answer then as it is now is: Hell No!
please try again

No, Thus not subject to christian policy but Christians are in the majority Is the majority always right?? and we are talking about the Democratic, Sovereign nation of Bahamas whose Mission Statement declares firstly..."An abiding respect for Christian values...followed by...the Rule of Law."
Further, the supreme instrument governing this Bahamas - The Constitution- continues:
Now Know Ye Therefore:
We the Inheritors of and Successors to this Family of Islands, recognising the Supremacy of God .....
you forgot this part
and believing in the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual,
While I'd be the first to point out that your citizenship as a Bahamian guarantees you the right to freely reject God and embrace whatever Belief System you may wish, but I would be disobedient if I did not mention that God respects your right to choose as wel,l and has extended a further provision to you, as his creation called GRACE. 1 the Creator in all powerful and all knowing. This He/She has created what He/She wanted in the first place and there is no such thing as choice. As the Creator already knows my fate and I can't change it for if I could then the Creator is not all knowing..
In other words you could be as confused, defiant and on your way to Hell, as you are right now, Who made you judge yet the desire of His heart is that you change your thinking (REPENT) and accept The Lord Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior (Salvation). Just as the Jews and Muslims don't believe in the divinity of the prophet Jesus nor do I. I'm going to keep you in Prayer Vicky. As I write this post I am becomming aware that you were harmed by persons whom you trusted Really who?? seeing how you are a reader of minds and the unseen. But isn't that a gift of the evil one?? and the last thing that you need from me is one of my Ms. Irma Brown's beatings. Bring it on I have chewed people like you up like ones chews gum.
So let's see the power of God to correct and Save.
God Bless You!
you want to play spiritual psycho mumbo jumbo with me try this. The Creator has blessed me with knowledge as both man and woman. I am eunuch
May the Creator bless you and give you insight to know that not all are born just male or just female.

1 Samuel 18 (King James Version)
1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
2And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
2 Samuel 1:26 (King James Version)
26I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
you can try all you like this is a same sex union and more so a marriage as to unite 2 peoples by covenant is a marriage.
# Daniel 1:9
Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs
Is not a prince a man and what is Daniel? Also what would be tender love shared by 2.
Do you live by the laws of Moses?? Have you ever read the last verse in Leviticus. Can't you discuss something with out insults such as that how very christian of you. We are talking consenting human adults.
please try again

2 Samuel 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." (NIV)

I could understand that, my mother cherishes her friends, sometimes even more than my father. but that's a different kind of love than a marriage. that's a bond.

1 Samuel 17-18:4 (CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT VICKY!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG MUDDA SIK DRED, no offence, but this is how some people get swing)

(the story of Daniel and Goliath was before the verses you cited).

1 Samuel 17:55-58

As Saul watched David going out to meet the Philistine, he said to Abner, commander of the army, 'Abner, whose son is that young man?' Abner replied, 'As surely as you live, Your Majesty, I don't know.'

The king said, 'Find out whose son this young man is.'

As soon as David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought hm before Saul, with David still holding the Philistine's head.

"Whose son are you, young man?" Saul asked him.

David said "I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem."

18:1 "After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family.

And Jonathan made a covenant with david because he loved him as himself.

Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic."

bey that is open to interpretation. I read it, and i saw two very very good friends, who were obviously very close. SAUL did not let him go home, not JONATHAN whom he had entered the covenant with. also, what did this covenant entail? I could make a covenant to my best friend today, here and now, that i will always support her, that i will always keep her confidence that i get her shoes when she dies and that she does the same for me. this is not a marriage. this is a promise. Also, i dont mean to do this but let's open the flood gates for a bit. The book of Samuel never states that David agreed to do the same thing. he may not have been as enthusiastic about this bond as Jonathan. In fact, it could be argued that he only stayed because Saul (Jonathan's father) would not let him leave. But a covenant should be entered by two people so i think i can see that happening.

dont forget that it was almost a crime in Jewish society to not have any offspring, so why would homosexuality be condoned, even written about? I think what Samuel was trying to show was that David and Jonathan were very very close, and it was a fraternal like bond.

While i do not deny that Jonathan loved David as himself, i dont see this as a good comparison. it is clear that the two were very close friends, and loved each other very much.