Well, since they feel there is no impediment to gay marriage, why doesn't a same-sex couple test the law?

Ok if u did read wat i said i never said two wrongs made a right and i never pointed fingers i said that why put on the emphasis on just this because we want to fight for something we want.

You say its wrong but wat????? you never said why u feel its wrong ????!!!!

Its wrong for me to love who i love!!!!!!!!???? No i dont think so.


u r judging and should not and thats wrong.





Morning Cassy,
How does this compare to a gay man or woman?
What If I said "Why not talk about the older gay men and women of our society that are molesting younger males and females?"
You see you cannot take 2 wrongs to make it right, it wont work.
I cannot understand how you feel for I have never walked in your shoes but sometimes we cannot try to justify what is wrong by pointing out another wrong.
I say wrong because I personally feel it is wrong BUT then on the other hand I shall not bash you in anyway, thats your life and your judgement.
You must defend you and your point of views and why you feel it is right but you cannot do that by pointing fingers at other wrongs....

Well, since they feel there is no impediment to gay marriage, why doesn't a same-sex couple test the law?
2 reasons,
the gay community respects the concept of marriage far too much for couples to get married just to prove a point,

most people are too frightened of being ostracized, persecuted, harassed or killed by dysfunctional people who think it is their right to dictate how people should live with each other, or who think its their duty to save the world from 'the heathens'

Ok if u did read wat i said i never said two wrongs made a right and i never pointed fingers i said that why put on the emphasis on just this because we want to fight for something we want.
You say its wrong but wat????? you never said why u feel its wrong ????!!!!
Its wrong for me to love who i love!!!!!!!!???? No i dont think so.
u r judging and should not and thats wrong.

Cassy,
I am the least of your worries here on this forum.

:realmad:Yes youu are the very least but before you replyto what i have to say and anyone else have to say on this forum you should read very carefully before trying to hard............


Cassy,
I am the least of your worries here on this forum.

:realmad:Yes youu are the very least but before you replyto what i have to say and anyone else have to say on this forum you should read very carefully before trying to hard............

Ok Cassy, Be Happy

it does define marriage...
it simply does not state that the two people getting married must be a man and a woman, a heterosexual couple
we have the Common Law Tradition here, but that is different from relying on common law where there is no statute law addressing the issue
Both of you have some valid points and on the other hand both of you are talking bs.
This is a settled issue, yinna just dnt know it yet!

Im confused why is this such a big deal, either it ain't gonna happen or it does.

That is not correct. The common law is the system of jurisprudence developed by the courts in England and is the name of our legal regime. Common law is basically the broad and detailed outline of our entire legal system. It is true to say that when there is no statute law addressing a provision then common law or case law might address the position. In this case, the relevant legislation ie the Marriage Act does not define marriage. This means that it presupposes a definition already. The only alternative source of a definition and description of marriage must come from common law. The presumption of statutory interpretation is that an Act of Parliament does not affect the common law unless it explicitly states that it does so. In this case it does not, and it does not state that it does so. Therefore the common law stands.
~The rastaman vibration is positive.~

Statutory law is higher than common law. and it can always be reversed.

so therefore, for example in Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Lord Advocate, the company demanded compensation for the British army's destruction of their oil plants. They got their compensation, but Parliament, as a result of this, passed the War Damages Act 1965, thereby reversing the common law.

The same can be done here.

Also, in case you didnt understand, this was passed in California. Unless (you know, without telling me) we've suddenly become a U.S. territory, this would be PERSUASIVE, but not binding.

Parliament can always amend the Act.

Both of you have some valid points and on the other hand both of you are talking bs.
This is a settled issue, yinna just dnt know it yet!
Well said.

looks like we have some lawyers on the forum these days :)

Morning Cassy,
How does this compare to a gay man or woman?
What If I said "Why not talk about the older gay men and women of our society that are molesting younger males and females?"
You see you cannot take 2 wrongs to make it right, it wont work.
I cannot understand how you feel for I have never walked in your shoes but sometimes we cannot try to justify what is wrong by pointing out another wrong.
I say wrong because I personally feel it is wrong BUT then on the other hand I shall not bash you in anyway, thats your life and your judgement.
You must defend you and your point of views and why you feel it is right but you cannot do that by pointing fingers at other wrongs....
In all due respects Lady Chippie, firstly, one must admire the personal courage and strength of Ms. Cassy for her impassionate stance, in the face of hostile opposition, to love the person she chose, and, to demand the same privileges as heterosexuals to the state sanctioned “bond of marriage”, with all its legal implications.

Secondly, as far as your comments on Ms. Cassy’s comparison of “two wrongs”..., it is YOU, with your basic premise that “homosexually” is wrong, who erroneously inferred that she was making such a comparison. In my humble opinion, Ms.Cassy merely, metaphorically speaking, “held up a mirror” to Bahamian Society and challenged us to “TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT VE- SELF”, in view of the unsympathetic and intimidating arguments against gay marriage. Moreover, she showed tremendous restraint by not retaliating against those opposed with similar "low-class" personal attacks.

Who among us can contest her statement that, WE ALL have "friends or relatives" who are “in the closet”, or in some cases, outwardly gay, and we may or may not be “ashamed of them”... And this is so true about us Bahamians, one would only hear “dark" family secrets in "whispers", as they are never spoken in the “open”.

She then goes on to remind us of the realistic problem of incest, a scourge that has permeated our society for decades, and has caused tremendous emotional and psychological harm to our children, even into adulthood. Yet, as a society, we have never conducted an in dept study or implemented a national strategy to eliminate this problem.

Ms. Cassy also mentions the spiralling murder rate and violent crime that has a strangle hold on our society... Where is the passion here to lock up the perpetrators and get them off the streets...?

Lastly, she exposes a truth that most homophobic persons denies. That is, even though they raise their children to be anti-gay, those children who may have a homosexual orientation are forced to live on the “down low”, pretending to be “straight”. Many are compelled by social pressures, to enter into “empty” heterosexual “relationships”, some resulting in "marriage", while maintaining a “secret” homosexual lifestyle characterised by “shallow” relations and promiscuous sexual liaisons. IMO, this risqué lifestyle, has contributed tremendously to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in our society.

So WHY would anyone, including anti-gays, be in opposition to persons exercising their constitutional right to enter into a monogamist relationship, in the legal bonds of "marriage", regardless of the fact that their partner is of the same sex?

Accordingly, homosexuals, as citizens of our Beloved Bahama Land, are created EQUALLY, and IMBUED with certain “INALIENABLE RIGHTS", if I may borrow a term from the U.S. Constitution. In a true democracy, exclusivity cannot be used to define an “inalienable right", such as the right for two consenting adults of the same sex to marry... and, NO MAN or WOMAN, REGARDLESS OF COLOUR OR CREED, SHALL BE DEPRAVED OF THESE INALIENABLE RIGHTS... :hammer:

You know the strange thing about this whole gay issue that they themself understands thats in a marrige one plays the woman role and the other the male. Confuse people who needs help.

You know the strange thing about this whole gay issue that they themself understands thats in a marrige one plays the woman role and the other the male. Confuse people who needs help.
you do confuse people
how can you understand how the gay community feels about marriage when you can't even spell marriage?

[B]In all due respects Lady Chippie

I will leave it at that.

Thanks for your comment.

I wish them all the best