Thanks for the link :hammer:
And Whereas the People of this Family of Islands recognizing 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;
Now Know Ye Therefore:
As a matter of law, the preamble to of the Constitution has no legal force and shall not be considered in interpreting the laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. The provisions in the constitution that guarantees freedom of religion have already been outlined in this thread...:hammer:

Well i wonder why no one else was mentioned?
What difference does it make? This could be debated over and over again, but the bottom line is that the actual provisions of the constitution that are matters of law is what the Court scrutinises during legal proceedings... They do not try to decipher the words found in the preamble of the constitution and/or their hidden meaning, as they have no legal bearing... :dunce:

If our laws are taken directly from the Bible? I have been informed that sodomy is still a crime. and that's taken from Leviticus 18:22
A usual, you are terribly misinformed. In general, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom, in regards to sexual intercourse, is not sanctioned by our laws or your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22. :footmouth

"The role of the government is not to investigate or pass judgment on the sexual conduct of adults as long as it's private...“ Hubert A. Ingraham, Prime Minister of The Commonwealth of the Bahamas

For your information:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Leviticus 18:22

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase no obvious interpretation.


National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 4 In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

c ...I am confused about what... the constitution has to do with Human Biology 101... I am posting based on Human Biology...thread.
IMO, the fundamental Rights guaranteed to all by our constitution have greater relevance to the actual topic of this thread than your elementary examples of human reproduction. Moreover, a same-sex couple’s ability to procreate has no legal bearing on their right to marriage.

Also Agruably but we will agree to disagree on that if need be because the questions also relate to fornication/ Sweethearting/Cheating etc.
Reverend Lyon Bethel’s Moral Questionnaire is neither an empirical indicator of a politician’s potential to be an effective leader, nor his propensity to make sound moral decisions. Besides, the politicians can simply lie on the questionnaire.

...No matter what we say, their beliefs and standards will determine whether or not we vote for them whether it relates to their sexual orientation or not and if one is running for public office, the public has the right to know as much about them as possible.
This may be true, but I fail to see what one’s sexual orientation has to do with his or her ability to be an effective representative. In this regard, Reverend Bethel's Questionnaire is pure homophobia, at its worse.

... my opinion is that Fornication and Sweethearting should be addressed by men like Mr Bethel with just as much attention as Homosexuality. as well to promote Monagamy and waiting to have sex after Marriage between a Man and a Woman as the Natural Way of life? I totally concur.
You have made your position on same-sex marriage abundantly clear. So, why do you continue to insist that your post is solely about “human Biology”? “Mean what you say, and say what you mean”.

No, I am not old enough to be a clergyman but again, my opinion is that Fornication and Sweethearting should be addressed by men like Mr Bethel with just as much attention as Homosexuality.
Young man, you are entitled to your opinion. If you want Mr. Bethel to decide who you should vote for based on his skewed moral standards, then you go right ahead, that's the democratic way, aye?

...so my point is this, I am posting on Biology and you just stated that my comment was Biological Fact... I will say again that my posts has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage, Religion, the Bible, it has to do with the continuation of our Species.
Are you now promoting Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Again, your futile arguments on procreation, as a veil attempt to oppose same-sex marriage, have no merit.

"We have some common ground that we both agree on, can this be progress toward bridging the divide between our opposing views on HETEROSEXUAL marriage...
You have deliberately misquoted me by substituting "same-sex' with "heterosexual". Moreover, your implication that my support for same-sex marriage stands in opposition to heterosexual marriage is far-fetched and misleading at best.

Again, my free Biology lesson has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage so I hope that clears up my previous posts were in regard to. Human Biology is fact e.g. a man cannot get pregnant, go in labour and give birth to a child, a woman will always be needed or else we will be EXTINCT whether you or I am married or not.
During my undergraduate studies, I had participated in an inter-disciplinary course called "The Riddle of Life", involving three lecturers, one from Biology, Theology, and Philosophy, for two full-semesters. We studied “Man, from his birth to his terminus”, from the perspective of these three disciplines, and the syllabus included artificial insemination, abortion, human sexuality, and euthanasia, to name a few.

IMO, your elementary examples of human reproduction are a rather pathetic argument against same-sex marriage. EXTINCTION...? This premise is both irrelevant and highly improbable.

You are halfway correct on that one I must admit because in and out of the church they are:
a) Many so-called Christians who are in the closet Homosexuals and
b) Many Homo-sexuals, Fornicators, and Sweethearters among many others who claim they are Christians not realizing the fact that when they are knowingly and intentionally commiting a sin because they see nothing wrong with it "AFTER" after accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour, will still go to hell, unless they repent (EXCLUDING SUICIDE).
"The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7:1 tells us:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged...”

Insofar as family life is concerned, studies conducted in developed nations around the world, most notably in North America and Western Europe, maintain that homosexuals are born and raised by well-adjusted loving heterosexual parents; and that well adjusted homosexuals have given birth to and raised well-adjusted heterosexual children. While research has not been conducted in The Bahamas, the results would very likely be quite similar among Bahamians.

An individual’s right to privacy is a basic human right cherished by all people. It is a right which citizens of democratic countries expect to be respected by their Government. Quite simply, it is not the role of the Government to investigate and pass judgement on the sexual behaviour of consenting adults so long as their activity is conducted in private.

My Government seeks to promote healthy, responsible lifestyles for all our people. We know that discriminating against and ostracizing people does not create a healthy environment... “

The above are excerpts of an official Statement by Rt. Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham , Prime Minister of The Commonwealth of the Bahamas. Sunday 8 March, 1998.

http://www.bahamas-mon.com/pressrelease.html

As I said before, I will say it again, I work with many Homosexuals/Lesbians/Fornicators/Sweethearters etc and do business with many of them and I have respect for them despite what we disagree on. All I try to do is to encourange them that Monogamy (being faithfull), and Marriage between a Man and a Woman is the natural way of life (nothing to do with Religion), where as the afore mentioned is morally and ethically wrong no matter how one tries to use their methods/motives/agendas to justify it being natural because it is not.
Firstly, to group all homosexuals in the same sentence as fornicators and sweethearters illustrates your prejudices toward this small group of our citizenry. You speak of respect, and then show a blatant disregard for GLBTQ folks who you do not even know or have never met.

Secondly, why do you believe that you are the voice of morality? What makes you believe that your premise of what is “natural” is universal? Scientific research has even observed homosexual activities in animals. Do you believe these animals “chose” to display homosexual behaviour?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Lastly, throughout this thread you have portrayed man as basically one-dimensional, focusing on the “natural order” vis-à-vis “human reproduction”. IMO, Man is three-dimensional, physical, spiritual, and psychological. These three dimensions of man are inter-related, and must be in “equilibrium” in order for him to achieve Self Actualisation.

Accordingly, if a man is born with a “homosexual” orientation and is forced to live life as a "heterosexual", this imbalance will affect him spiritually, physically, and psychologically. He could only achieve “equilibrium” when he discovers and accepts his “true” nature.

Interesting thread, and that last post, that has to be the longest reply yet :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24969197/

Calif. court won't delay gay weddings until vote

Justices deny appeal for stay until voters decide on ban initiative

SAN FRANCISCO - California's highest court on Tuesday refused to stay until after the November election its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue.

An initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage has qualified for the ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision.

The Supreme Court says its ruling will be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

Wednesday's denial clears the way for gays and lesbians in the nation's most populous state to get married starting June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

On Monday, the initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California qualified for the state's November ballot.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

"This signifies the fact that California voters really do favor and will come out to vote for the protection of historic marriage," said Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups behind the initiative.

In response to the court's May 15 ruling, California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. Local officials have been told to start issuing the revised licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.

Gay men and lesbians would still be able to get married between then and the election, even with the initiative pending, unless the court agrees to stay its decision until after Nov. 4, as the amendment's sponsors have requested.

If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the state Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, said gay marriage advocates have already launched a campaign to defeat the measure.

"There is just so much at stake, now, in terms of what kind of state we are going to live in and what values we are going to uphold," Kendell said.

To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race.

Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of 3 percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.

Recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

This thread aint close yet:dgi::dgi::dgi::dgi::hammer::hammer::hammer:

I have a question if our legal system, and governmental systems derived from the british system why is it that people are using cases from their as an example especially if those cases have no bearing or dont affect us. Wouldnt an example from the british law system solidify your case.

Yes, but while in the Bahamas, they must adhere to any laws based on the Christian faith. An example would be Bahamians only being allowed to have one wife/husband. Or shops not being allowed to be open on Sundays.
We live in a parliamentary democracy, and enjoy “freedom of religion”, which means there is no “state church “or state–sanctioned “religion”. Yes, our moral laws may be based on Christian Principles, derived from our colonial history and heritage. However, do not think for one moment that the “Christian Faith” has the monopoly on “morality”.

“Blue laws” may have derived from the numerous extremely rigorous laws designed to regulate morals and conduct that were enacted dating back to our colonial era, regulating work, commerce, and amusements on Sunday; however, consider these excepts from following article:

http://www.thebahamas.com/shopper.htm

A Shopper's Dream

The Bahamas is quickly becoming known as the duty free capital of the Caribbean. Linens, leather, china, crystal, collectibles, perfumes and fragrances, liquor and wine, watches and jewellery and more at unbeatable prices -it's enough to make a savvy shopper's credit card itch. For the Bahamas, it's pretty heady to climb to near the top of the list in the competitive world of duty free shopping.

It was only in 1992 that the government allowed certain goods to be imported duty free, reducing their cost by as much as 30% to 35%, a savings passed on to the consumer...

Shopping hours and opportunities were extended when Blue Laws forbidding Sunday shopping were repealed and replaced with legislation that permitted downtown stores serving visitors to open between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Most other stores still remain closed on Sundays and food stores, which are permitted to open at 7 a.m., must lock their doors by 10 a.m.

It appears to me that the repeal of these laws was based on the economic reality of our touristic economy, not strict adherence to the “Christian Faith”. The bottom line is the Bay Street Boys received a much needed economic boost, and their labourers are probably working more hours for the same amount of pay... How very “Christian” of us, aye?

Similarly, in a Middle-Eastern country, we would have to follow rules based on the Islamic faith.
“When in Rome, do as the Romans do...”, aye?

But seriously speaking, if the Bahamas is to become competitive and successful, we can no longer remain insular or continue to depend on a single-market touristic economy. We must diversify and develop products and services which can be marketed to the global community. In doing do, careful research of cultural and religious differences can craft the right words and mine set to maximise these efforts.

No. This is not natural. It is ARTIFICIAL insemination. To take your point further, when artificial insemination was not available, how could a homosexual couple reproduce?
Yes, you are absolutely correct, as surrogacy, a method of assisted reproduction (ART) whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant for the purpose of gestating and giving birth to a child for others to raise, uses artificial means of insemination.

The surrogate mother may be the child's genetic mother (the more traditional form of surrogacy), or she may be implanted with an unrelated embryo. In some cases surrogacy is the only available option for parents who wish to have a child that is biologically related to them, i.e. a male homosexual couple.

However, you raise an interesting point, “when artificial insemination was not available, how could a homosexual couple reproduce?” However, I believe the answer is rather obvious, they did it the old fashion way, “naturally”, or course.

Having another woman bear a child for a couple to raise, usually with the male half of the couple as the genetic father, is referred to in antiquity. For example, the book of Genesis relates the story of Sarah's servant Hagar bearing a child to Abraham for Sarah and Abraham to raise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_mother

I'd like to know what is. I can't locate a list of criteria.
You may contact the Marriage Registry at: regmarriages@bahamas.gov.bs , or go to the following link:

http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/bahamasweb2/home.nsf/vContentW/F5FAF3FBA078583685257013005CBE00

For Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) for Marriage Services in the Bahamas, go to the following link:

http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/bahamasweb2/home.nsf/vContentW/RGD--marriage+Registry--Marriages+FAQ

Your post was very long, but I just wanted to take a closer look at these points.
Sorry for the long delay, hope these responses were able to oblige...

Sorry for the long delay, hope these responses were able to oblige...

Thanks.

i WAS aCTUALLY dONE oN tHIS tHREAD bUT oUT oF cOURTESY aND rESPECT fOR yOU, i aM rESPONDING.

hERE wE gO:)

oH aND sPAM, i KNOW wHAT yA gA sAY, tAKE iT eASY oN mE oN dIS oNE......

c
IMO, the fundamental Rights guaranteed to all by our constitution have greater relevance to the actual topic of this thread than your elementary examples of human reproduction. Moreover, a same-sex couple’s ability to procreate has no legal bearing on their right to marriage.

aGREED, aS i ALREADY sTATED aGAIN tHAT i AM gUILTY oF hIJACKING aND oUT oF rESPECT fOR cORABELL, i wILL dISCONTINUE dOING sO, nO mORE bIOLOGY (oR aT lEAST i wILL tRY..

Reverend Lyon Bethel’s Moral Questionnaire is neither an empirical indicator of a politician’s potential to be an effective leader, nor his propensity to make sound moral decisions. Besides, the politicians can simply lie on the questionnaire.

tRUE, aLSO, aS mR bETHEL cAN oNLY lITERALLY sPEAK fOR hIMSELF oR tHOSE wHO aLLOW hIM tOO, nOT fOR mE bECAUSE wHO i cHOOSE tO vOTE fOR hAS nOTHING tO dO wITH mR bETHEL oR hIS qUESTIONAIRE, oN tHE oTHER hAND i WOULD hAVE mY oWN qUESTIONAIRE wITH a wHOLE lOT mORE qUESTIONS rELATED tO tHE mORE pRESSING iSSUES tHE pOOR mAN (iNCLUDING mYSELF) iS fACING. oN a sERIOUS nOTE tHOUGH, yOU sHOULD rEPHRASE yOUR lAST sENTENCE wITH tHE fOLLOWING, "tHE pOLITICIANS cAN sIMPLY tELL tHE tRUTH oN tHE qUESTIONAIRE..:). i'M sURE tHERE iS nO nEED tO eLABORATE oN tHAT oNE.:)

This may be true, but I fail to see what one’s sexual orientation has to do with his or her ability to be an effective representative. In this regard, Reverend Bethel's Questionnaire is pure homophobia, at its worse.

i GUESS wE cAN aGREE tO dISAGREE oN tHAT oNE bECAUSE tHE rEALITY IS tHAT tHE mAJORITY oF tHE bAHAMIAN pEOPLE wILL sTILL dISAGREE wITH yoU, tHEY wOULD sTILL wANT tO kNOW rEGARDLESS oF hOW yOU fEEL tHAT tHE cANDIDATES pERSONAL lIFE sHOULD nOT mATTER, dIS dA bAHAMAS yA kNOW, eVA hEARD oF dA pUNCH.

You have made your position on same-sex marriage abundantly clear. So, why do you continue to insist that your post is solely about “human Biology”? “Mean what you say, and say what you mean”.

wELL aRL bEE, aLL dIS tIME i wAS tALKIN tO dA P.M., oKAY sERIOUSLY, sAME sEX mARRIAGE, (iN mY oPINION, i dONT aGREE wITH iT, aND nEVER wILL, aGREE tA dISAGREE oN dAT oNE)
hUMAN bOILOGY, (bASED oN sCIENTIFIC fACT, a mAN cANNOT hAVE a cHILD, tHAT wORKS fOR mE, aGAIN, aGREE tO dISAGREE)

hOPE tHAT sUMS iT uP.:)

Young man, you are entitled to your opinion.

dEFINTELY tRUE aS yOU aRE eNTITLED tO yOURS:hammer:

If you want Mr. Bethel to decide who you should vote for based on his skewed moral standards, then you go right ahead, that's the democratic way, aye?

yOU sURE yOU eEN wAN mR. bETHEL tO dECIDE wHO yOU sHOULD vOTE fOR, (rEVERSE pSYCHOLOGY FYI!!!) iF yOU wERE tO dISCOVER tHAT iNDEED a cANDIDATE wAS tO pROUDLY iNDICATE tHAT tHEY wERE aLSO a hOMOSEXUAL? :confused:
(i gUESS oN mY pART, i ALREADY aNSWERED tHAT oNE fOR mYSELF:)
Are you now promoting Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Again, your futile arguments on procreation, as a veil attempt to oppose same-sex marriage, have no merit.

aGAIN, i aLREADY aNSWERED tHAT lIKE tHREE bILLION tIMES aBOUT mY iLLEGAL tHREAD hIGHjACKING, i GUESS yOU wANT mE tO gET dA cAT, cOW cOC*, aND dA eLECTRIC cHAIR, i GERN tA cALL dA pRIVY cOUNCIL fA yOU yA kNOW:confused:

You have deliberately misquoted me by substituting "same-sex' with "heterosexual". Moreover, your implication that my support for same-sex marriage stands in opposition to heterosexual marriage is far-fetched and misleading at best.

uNDERSTOOD, bUT tHAT sTILL dOES nOT aNSWER mY qUESTION aND iTS aLL gOOD eVEN tHOUGH i mADE mY pOSITION cLEAR bUT yOU hAVE yET tO dO tHE sAME, jUST fOR tHE rECORD tHOUGH, iT wAS nOT dONE iN a wAY tO iNTENTIONALY cHANGE tHE wORDS hOMO tO hETERO aND tO mAKE iT sEEM aS iF yOU wERE tHE oNE wHO tYPED hETERO, iT wAS uSED iN A fASHION tO aSK tHE eXACT sAME qUESTION yOU aSKED mE wITH mYSELF cLEARLY iNDICATING tHAT i uSED oNE oF yOUR sTATEMENTS (i dO hAVE rESPECT fOR cOPYRIGHT bY tHE wAY) wITH tHE wORD hETERO iNSTEAD oF hOMO. dON'T wORRY mY bRO/sIS, sMALL tINGS, eVEN tHOUGH yOU dID tHE sAME wITH tHE pERSONAL eMAIL tHING, yOU kNOW wHAT i aM tALKIN bOUT:)....

During my undergraduate studies, I had participated in an inter-disciplinary course called "The Riddle of Life", involving three lecturers, one from Biology, Theology, and Philosophy, for two full-semesters. We studied “Man, from his birth to his terminus”, from the perspective of these three disciplines, and the syllabus included artificial insemination, abortion, human sexuality, and euthanasia, to name a few.

jUST oUT oF cURIOSITY, wERE yOU a pSYCH mAJOR?

IMO, your elementary examples of human reproduction are a rather pathetic argument against same-sex marriage. EXTINCTION...? This premise is both irrelevant and highly improbable.

cAN yOU gUARANTEE tHAT 100% wITH yOUR lIFE aS i cAN gUARANTEE wITH mY lIFE tHAT a mAN cAN nEVER gET pREGNANT. tHINK aBOUT iT mY fRIEND, tOMORROW iS nOT gUARANTEED tO nOONE, wE hAVE Junior Achievers (yOUr I.Q. iS oVER 150, yOU cAN fIGURE tHAT oNE oUT) iTCHING tO tAKE tHIS pART oF tHE wORLD oUT wITH a nUKE, wE aLL lIVE oN oNE pLANET, yOU oR i cANNOT pREDICT tHE fUTURE aND nO mATTER hOW iRRELEVANT oR hIGHLY iMPROBABLE iT iS tO yOU, wHICH iN mY oPINION iS yOUR wAY oF aLSO sAYING tHAT yOU tOO aGREE tHAT tHE pOSSIBILITY sTILL eXIST oF wHAT i sPEAK wHICH iS uNDERSTOOD, fACT iS fACT, oNE mAN, oNE wOMAN, nOT sTERILE, oUR sPECIES sTILL hAS a cHANCE. i CAN gUARANTEE tHAT yOU aND i WILL nEVER sEE eYE tO eYE oN tHAT sO aGIAN, wE wILL aGREE tO dISAGREE, yOU?


"The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7:1 tells us:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged...”

mY, bROTHER, wE aLL jUDGE eACH oTHER eVERYDAY, jUST aS yOU jUDGE mE bASED oN mY cOMMENTS, i jUDGE yOU bASED oN yoUR cOMMENTS. wE jUDGE iN a coURT oF lAW, wE jUDGE wHEN wE dECIDE wHO oR wHO nOT tO hIRE fOR a jOB, wE jUDGE oN wHO wE sHOULD vOTE fOR, sO iN mY oPINION yOU cOULD hAVE pOSSIBLY uSED iT iN tHE fOLLOWING tERMS.


Mr. John Doe, you are in no position to judge or state that you are better than anyone else. I would agree with you on that Truth because I am no better or no worse than anyone regardless of how much money they have, who they are related, how many stars someone has and is considered a newee or a senior member on B.I. (The Greatest Website In the World), how tall or short they are, (You Will Like This Next One), Their SEXUAL ORIENTATION, or anything else, I am Skin and Bone just like every other Human Being and I am no better or no worse, why, because we all have to face Judgement for ourself, by ourself when we move on. Now we will have those who make stupid decisions in which we seperate them on this Earth from the rest of society but a man is just a man and a woman is just a woman, ashes to ashes dust to dust we all shall be.

oH, sIDE nOTE, yOU dO rEALISE tHAT yOU hAVE aLREADY jUDGED mE tEN tIMES aLREADY eXCLUDING yOUR sTATEMENTS aFTER tHE bELOW pOST, bUT jUST iNCASE:

1) your elementary examples of human reproduction.
2) You have made your position on same-sex marriage abundantly clear.
3) So, why do you continue to insist that your post is solely about “human Biology”?
4) “Mean what you say, and say what you mean”.
5) Young man, you are entitled to your opinion.
6) If you want Mr. Bethel to decide who you should vote for based on his skewed moral standards, then you go right ahead
7) Are you now promoting Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
8) Again, your futile arguments on procreation, as a veil attempt to oppose same-sex marriage, have no merit.
9) You have deliberately misquoted me by substituting "same-sex' with "heterosexual".
10) Moreover, your implication that my support for same-sex marriage stands in opposition to heterosexual marriage is far-fetched and misleading at best.
11) IMO, your elementary examples of human reproduction are a rather pathetic argument against same-sex marriage.
iNTERESTING, oKAY lETS cONTINUE:)

Insofar as family life is concerned, studies conducted in developed nations around the world, most notably in North America and Western Europe, maintain that homosexuals are born and raised by well-adjusted loving heterosexual parents; and that well adjusted homosexuals have given birth to and raised well-adjusted heterosexual children. While research has not been conducted in The Bahamas, the results would very likely be quite similar among Bahamians.

eXCELLENT aS yOU aRE aBLE tO sTATE tHAT iN tHE bAHAMAS, tHE rESULTS wILL vERY lIKELY bE qUITE sIMILAR aMONG bAHAMIANS eVEN tHOUGH tHE sURVEY wAS nOT dONE aS yET mORE iMPORTANTLY tHE fACT tHAT yOU mADE aN iNTERESTING qUOTE bELOW, aND i qUOTE: small group of our citizenry. aS yOU rEFERED tO aS tHE aMOUNT oF hOMOSEXUALS iN tHE bAHAMAS iN wHICH i TOTALLY dO nOT cONCUR, cAN yOU sTAND uP wITH fULL 100% wITHOUT aDOUBT cONFIDENCE tHAT eVEN wITH tHE lARGE aMOUNT oF hOMOSEXUALS iN tHE bAHAMAS, (eVEN tHOUGH i cANNOT uNDERSTAND hOW yOU cAN sTATE tHAT iTS oNLY a sMALL gROUP oF oUR cITIZENRY?:confused: yOU fEEL tHE rESULTS wILL bE tHE sAME aS tHE "DEVELOPED COUNTRIES"?

eVEN wITH yOUR eARLIER iNDICATION oF mY eLEMENTARY eXAMPLES oF hUMAN bIOLOGY, i kNOW fOR sURE 100% tHAT tHiS IS a sTUDY/pROVEN fACT tHAT i cAN sTAND bY 100% sINCE iN yoUR oPINION, aNY sTUDY dONE oN hOMOSEXUALITY iS wITHOUT a dOUBT a fACT eVEN tHOUGH tHE sAME pERSONS wHO cONDUCT tHE sTUDIES oN eITHER hOMOSEXUALITY oR hETEROSEXUALITY tHAT yOU sPEAK oF cAN aT aNYTIME aLTER tHE rESULTS aT tHEIR oWN lEISURE fOR tHIER oWN pERSONAL gRATIFICATION?:confused:

An individual’s right to privacy is a basic human right cherished by all people. It is a right which citizens of democratic countries expect to be respected by their Government. Quite simply, it is not the role of the Government to investigate and pass judgement on the sexual behaviour of consenting adults so long as their activity is conducted in private.
My Government seeks to promote healthy, responsible lifestyles for all our people. We know that discriminating against and ostracizing people does not create a healthy environment... “
The above are excerpts of an official Statement by Rt. Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham , Prime Minister of The Commonwealth of the Bahamas. Sunday 8 March, 1998.

aND i tOTALLY cONCUR wITH hIM aS nO oNE iS bETTER tHAN nO oNE aS i iNDICATED aBOVE bUT i dONT wANT tO bECOME mONOTONOUS aND rEPEAT mY eSSAY aGAIN.....

http://www.bahamas-mon.com/pressrelease.html
Firstly, to group all homosexuals in the same sentence as fornicators and sweethearters illustrates your prejudices toward this small group of our citizenry. (aGAIN yOU sAID iT aND iT iS iNTERESTING bUT aNYWAY mOVING oN)

nOT nECESSARILY yA kNOW, iTS yOU wHO tOOK iT tHAT wAY, nOTICE i dID uSE cOMMAS bUT tO cLEAR iT uP fOR yOU, cHECK tHIS oUT.

I work with Heterosexuals, Fornicators, Sweethearters, Theives, Haitians, Jamaicans, Lawyers, Prisoners etc. The Commas Do Indicate That They Are All Different:confused: You Seem To Be a Learned Person, and its interesting to see that negative is the first thing your mind will think off, I never said:

I work with Homosexuals who also Fornicate and Sweetheart, I honestly did not think I would have to break that down for you but its no problem.:)


You speak of respect, and then show a blatant disregard for GLBTQ folks who you do not even know or have never met.

i tHINK i hAVE aLREADY aNSWERED tHAT oNE wITH mY lAST cOMMENT bUT iF nOT lET mE kNOW aND i wILL bREAK iT dOWN aGAIN.

Secondly, why do you believe that you are the voice of morality? What makes you believe that your premise of what is “natural” is universal?

(vERY lOW tONE) dO yOU tHINK i aM tHE vOICE oF mORALITY?)


Scientific research has even observed homosexual activities in animals. Do you believe these animals “chose” to display homosexual behaviour?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

iNTERSTING, wILL cHECK iT oUT, iT wOULD bE a sIGHT tO sEE rAZOR hOP nINJA tHOUGH, kINDA sTRANGE (oH yES, i mEAN mY tWO maLE pITbULLS)
iLL lEAVE cASTRATION fA dA uDDER tHREAD)


Lastly, throughout this thread you have portrayed man as basically one-dimensional, focusing on the “natural order” vis-à-vis “human reproduction”. IMO, Man is three-dimensional, physical, spiritual, and psychological.

wAIT, dID yOU sAY sPIRITUAL. wOW. i pERFER nOT tO dISCUSS sPIRITUALITY cAUSE tHAT wOULD bE dOUBLE hIJACKING bUT i'LL sAY tHIS, I AM POSTING BASED ON BIOLOGY AND NOTHING ELSE, ITS OBVIOULSY ONE DIMENSIONAL IF I AM NOT POSTING ON PSYCHOLOGY OR SPIRITUALITY, BIOLOGY=PHYSICAL. wHY yOU dOIN yA bOY lIKE dAT mAN, nAW iF yOU wANT mE tO dISCUSS sPIRITUALITY AND pSYCHOLOGY, oUT oF rESPECT fOR tHE cREATOR oF THIS tHREAD, i WILL cREATE a nEW tHREAD fOR uS tO cONTINUE:)

These three dimensions of man are inter-related, and must be in “equilibrium” in order for him to achieve Self Actualisation.
Accordingly, if a man is born with a “homosexual” orientation and is forced to live life as a "heterosexual", this imbalance will affect him spiritually, physically, and psychologically. He could only achieve “equilibrium” when he discovers and accepts his “true” nature.


tHAT lAST oNE wILL tAKE mE a fEW pAGES bUT i gATTA rUN sO wELL cHAT lATER.

But In All Seriousness dough, next small side note, I dont think postmortem will be happy with your response to me because I tink He/She ga accuse you of taking bout six days ta type ya response causing dem of havin to much ta read especially with me pourin gas on da fire so ta speak, juss letting you know cause I know I ga get it too, juss lookin out fa ya)

pEACE aND lOVE tO aLL
JD

All the vivid colors, you guys are making the posts very interesting :)

PS. Mr Doe, shift key stuck aye? :D

Dis tread still gern on?

Dis tread still gern on?
close da thread, der layers of mud dun cake up and crackin from the intense sunlite

i WAS aCTUALLY dONE oN tHIS tHREAD bUT oUT oF cOURTESY aND rESPECT fOR yOU, i aM rESPONDING. hERE wE gO:)
Please, next time, do me a favour, forget courtesy and respect, you simply do not have to respond... :raw:

Initially, while reading your post, I had a flash back of a television commercial I remembered from my childhood... It begins with a man's hand holding a chicken egg. A monotone voice says, "this is your brains". The egg is creaked on the side of a skillet sitting over an open gas burner. As it quickly fries in the hot oil, the voice then says, "this is your brains on drugs"... :sarcastic

Your latest post is rather complex and requires time for analysis. And quite frankly, I neither have the intellectual energy, nor the time to decipher exactly what you may be trying to convey. In fact, I am uncertain if you do... :dunce:

But In All Seriousness dough, next small side note, I dont think postmortem will be happy with your response to me because I tink He/She ga accuse you of taking bout six days ta type ya response causing dem of havin to much ta read especially with me pourin gas on da fire so ta speak, juss letting you know cause I know I ga get it too, juss lookin out fa ya
Thanks for the backup... But, my shoulders are broad, I think I can handle it... :hammer:

Please, next time, do me a favour, forget courtesy and respect, you simply do not have to respond... :raw:

No Problem My Bro, no offense taken...


Initially, while reading your post, I had a flash back of a television commercial I remembered from my childhood... It begins with a man's hand holding a chicken egg. A monotone voice says, "this is your brains". The egg is creaked on the side of a skillet sitting over an open gas burner. As it quickly fries in the hot oil, the voice then says, "this is your brains on drugs"... :sarcastic
Oh yes that was an good one:)


Your latest post is rather complex and requires time for analysis. And quite frankly, I neither have the intellectual energy, nor the time to decipher exactly what you may be trying to convey. In fact, I am uncertain if you do... :dunce:
Again that a agree to disagree situation so I guess thats that...


Thanks for the backup... But, my shoulders are broad, I think I can handle it... :hammer:
Broad Shoulders, Wow at least we do have one thing in common through it all. Its good that we have finally put an end to this thread.


It was indeed a pleasure to have a discussion with you, and until again...

Peace and Love to all
JD

THIS THREAD IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED.....:hammer: