So says d1973! You dang goverment officials need to make it official cuz he/she says so! Do it!
SMT. IDK what that means but I'm pretty sure I should stop talking. ;)

SMT.. means suck my teeth....:)

the issue here is that you cannot legislate morality......(or what someone perceives to be morality)....

i suggest you read this thread from begining to end, then comment on my comments nest ce pas? you cant jump in a conversation and expect to know what my position is, then have the audacity to call me out on my position when you do not know my position or argument.
this is the most flawed reasoning on so many levels.......that it baffles me how simplistic your aproach is to this.....
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....

yeah I was right you are DUMB... ms. "I got 102 posts on BI"... if YOU read the thread from the beginning... starting at page one... you will realize that this topic has been thouroughly discussed...and my participation in the thread speaks for itself..

your ideas are NOT new...and still don't make sense... your position is clear from your most recent posts... but if I misread... then make yourself clear...

...alot seems to baffle this person.
:rolleyes::dunce:
who?...

SMT.. means suck my teeth....:)
in dat case, SMA :D
:bouncy::bouncy:

Law or not I don't think any minister or JP for that matter is going to marry two persons of the same sex here in the Bahamas... Our tolerance of homosexuality is no where near being on that level...:footmouth

You late Boo, one pastor in Freeport done get in trouble for marrying 2 Canadian man tourist dem last year, and he say he'll do it again, cause gay marriage is legal in Canada.

in dat case, SMA :D
:bouncy::bouncy:
stop wishing

Apple picks sides in California marriage debate

http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/10/24/apple.fights.prop.8/

You late Boo, one pastor in Freeport done get in trouble for marrying 2 Canadian man tourist dem last year, and he say he'll do it again, cause gay marriage is legal in Canada.

Guess what I just found out in my family law class? I thought gay marriages were legal in the United Kingdom, but it turns out it isn't. Civil Partnerships between homosexuals are legal: they have all the legal benefits and attributes of a marriage, but is not called one (Civil Partnership Act 2004) Marriages, established by Hyde v. Hyde (1886), was defined as "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." That common law definition still stands today.

In fact, one gay couple a Ms. Kitzinger and Ms. Wilkinson brough an action against Her Majesty's Attorney General, claiming that their marriage in Canada should be valid in the United Kingdom, and not considered a civil partnership because barring them from doing so was a violation of their Article 8 rights afforded in the European Convention of Human Rights (Right to respect for private and family life). The European Court of Human Rights rejected such a claim, deciding that the ECHR afforded no rights to homosexual marriages.

I thought that was so interesting..............because although people may find homosexuals marrying appalling, maybe a civil partnership wouldn't be so bad........compromise?

Guess what I just found out in my family law class? I thought gay marriages were legal in the United Kingdom, but it turns out it isn't. Civil Partnerships between homosexuals are legal: they have all the legal benefits and attributes of a marriage, but is not called one (Civil Partnership Act 2004) Marriages, established by Hyde v. Hyde (1886), was defined as "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." That common law definition still stands today.
In fact, one gay couple a Ms. Kitzinger and Ms. Wilkinson brough an action against Her Majesty's Attorney General, claiming that their marriage in Canada should be valid in the United Kingdom, and not considered a civil partnership because barring them from doing so was a violation of their Article 8 rights afforded in the European Convention of Human Rights (Right to respect for private and family life). The European Court of Human Rights rejected such a claim, deciding that the ECHR afforded no rights to homosexual marriages.
I thought that was so interesting..............because although people may find homosexuals marrying appalling, maybe a civil partnership wouldn't be so bad........compromise?
Not that anyone wants it, but in my opinion: My mom and dad were happily married as well as their parents. I want a marriage with my partner, not a civil union. I have the happiness with my partner that my parents had in their marriage. I shouldn't have to call it something else. IMO, of course. ;)

Apple picks sides in California marriage debate
http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/10/24/apple.fights.prop.8/
Wasn't aware. I know that many celebrities and known political figures have stood up and choose NO on prop 8. Good for them...I know its not a political move for them...they won't make any profit off of this.

Not that anyone wants it, but in my opinion: My mom and dad were married as well as their parents. I want a marriage with my partner, not a civil union. I have the happiness with my partner that my parents had in their marriage. I shouldn't have to call it something else. IMO, of course. ;)

:) Of course. I respect your opinion.

but this is a 'marriage in all but name.' you still get the same benefits.....if you have the time read the Civil Partnerships Act 2004..........its hella long, but its a really good read. S (1) of the Act provides that "a civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex (civil partners) which is formed when they register as civil partners of each other or which they are treated as having formed by virtue of having registered an overseas relationship...." S (3) provides that a civil partnership ends only on death, dissolution or annulment." Same thing, just different name.

I have a question: why has this question of homosexual marriages never been in serious legislative debate in The Bahamas? or judicial for that matter?

:) Of course. I respect your opinion.
but this is a 'marriage in all but name.' you still get the same benefits.....if you have the time read the Civil Partnerships Act 2004..........its hella long, but its a really good read. S (1) of the Act provides that "a civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex (civil partners) which is formed when they register as civil partners of each other or which they are treated as having formed by virtue of having registered an overseas relationship...." S (3) provides that a civil partnership ends only on death, dissolution or annulment." Same thing, just different name.
I have a question: why has this question of homosexual marriages never been in serious legislative debate? or judicial for that matter?
Thanks, I'll take the time to read it. I think that just having to use different wording in my relationship (civil union rather than a marriage) makes one feel inferior to those that CAN "marry".
Blood relatives can partake of the civil union as well??!!

Guess what I just found out in my family law class? I thought gay marriages were legal in the United Kingdom, but it turns out it isn't. Civil Partnerships between homosexuals are legal: they have all the legal benefits and attributes of a marriage, but is not called one (Civil Partnership Act 2004) Marriages, established by Hyde v. Hyde (1886), was defined as "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." That common law definition still stands today.
In fact, one gay couple a Ms. Kitzinger and Ms. Wilkinson brough an action against Her Majesty's Attorney General, claiming that their marriage in Canada should be valid in the United Kingdom, and not considered a civil partnership because barring them from doing so was a violation of their Article 8 rights afforded in the European Convention of Human Rights (Right to respect for private and family life). The European Court of Human Rights rejected such a claim, deciding that the ECHR afforded no rights to homosexual marriages.
I thought that was so interesting..............because although people may find homosexuals marrying appalling, maybe a civil partnership wouldn't be so bad........compromise?
Hey even Ketchup can marry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qoXSpxv2u0

I understand both sides, the christians want to keep marriage as their thing and GLBT don't want to be treated differently even if its in name only. There is nothing stoping a civil partnership from being done with all the traditions of a wedding.

But for me I don't care what you call it its still a marriage no matter whats on the licence the 2 people are bonded together as one just like marrying ketchup.

Hey even Ketchup can marry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qoXSpxv2u0

I understand both sides, the christians want to keep marriage as their thing and GLBT don't want to be treated differently even if its in name only. There is nothing stoping a civil partnership from being done with all the traditions of a wedding.

But for me I don't care what you call it its still a marriage no matter whats on the licence the 2 people are bonded together as one just like marrying ketchup.


vicky you crazy... where do you get this things from.. ketchup BOL :D

vicky you crazy... where do you get this things from.. ketchup BOL :D
Just trying to show both sides marriage is only a word if the rights are equal.

Oh you did not respond the the slavery thing what happened the slavery in the Bible looked the same now??