That sounds awfully discriminatory -- we can't have that. A domestic group of people does not include my pet poodle that's been a part of my life for a long time.
I hope the constitution doesn't discriminate against my family that includes my poodle!!!You can get a licence for you pet poodle which is a legel union even in the Bahamas.
Domestic is also very discriminatory -- I guess gypsies and other nomads are not considered families. Must change that too!!!

Their home moves with them

If that's what I meant then why would I ask for a definition.
I'm asking for a simple, sensible definition. If people aren't happy with the traditional definition of family -- then what be the proposed new definition. The definition that rectifies all of the shortcomings that have been claimed against traditional definitions of family.
That's not hard is it.
It is important, we usually fashion laws around the word "family" and some consistent and practical definition would be very useful. That's all I ask.
Rory:
How many bachelors call themselves a "family" or try to marry themselves??

Dennis Rodman

LOL... sorry bey just trying a little humor on a TIRED thread!

But you keep posting

You can get a licence for you pet poodle which is a legel union even in the Bahamas.
Their home moves with them


1. A poodle is not a person which contradicts the definition.

2. The definition also refers to a family as domestic, being a nomad contradicts the definition.

3. Dennis Rodman is a freak. No sane person would argue with that. Gay or not.

http://bahamasissues.com/showpost.php?p=73172&postcount=230


Apparently, you don't know the meaning of according, so I will give you the definition...To be in agreement, unity, or harmony...it does not mean same as x,y,z. That post never says Bahamian law is Christian law....grasping at straws.

Just look at how offended you are with me. Now think if some one from another religion came here and told people Christanity was evil. HHHHmmm


1) I never took offence to you, what are you talking about?
2) Since I been on BI I have seen at least two threads about Christianity and how stupid it is etc etc
3) The approach of missionaries are a bit different, in fact, every Christian has a different approach. I believe you are being overly zealous about your view of Christians. Not every Christian is a bible pounding condeming person, the ones you meet up here does not represent the entire Christianity group just like how all of the Mulism popluation is not apart of the Taliban. To class a whole group of persons based on a small amount is pure ignorance...and you call yourself a leader of RAB????

When was it ever good? When people lied about it!?! Morals!?! Which ones!?!
We can agree that some periods in time, were better than others.
Point in case, medieval times to today.
Some scholars have placed emphasis on certain key social staples that are GOOD for a society.
One of them happens to be traditional marriage. Now, another thing we can agree on is that we have had important thinkers before and will have better later, but, what we should not dismiss are key ancient text and standard.
Thinkers like Robspeirre, Galileo and others, have had society down pat before people like Freud and Pavlov. This is why I do not take lightly old text, because they have the key to allot of life's problems. The Torah, Bible etc... have been spot on many times, on very complex issues in this time.

Moral have been changing every day even before the word was invented.
The world does not change. We may have technological advancement and so forth, but, society does not ever change or evolve. Society jumps back and forth to issues and regulation that suits its preference.
Ever heard of the saying, "The more things change, the more they remain the same".... LOL.
The Mad Hatter was spot on as well.

Morals from which country and which time period?? Now if you are referencing Biblical code well the argument is out the window.
Not biblical text exclusively, but, some societies have had it down without the necessary dictate from any Bible. Now religious text is something much different.
I do think that allot of key principles and standards that are in the Bible, are key for the ailments we have today. Without question, but to say that it is exclusive will not be truthful to even myself.
But, on the issue of traditional marriage, I feel that it is the way to go.
Slippery slope theory in all.

Should the law make the beholder less equal if they are an adult and hurting no one???

That is totally YOUR OPINIPON, LOL...
Allot of other people think otherwise.
If we are in fact talking about just traditional marriage.

Thats right you did fill in and interprate the Adam and Eve story to mean marriage 1 man and 1 woman.
Marriage Laws in the Bible
1. Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17–28)
2. Marriage will not impede the man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13; II Chronicles 11:21)


Looks like you making up your own Laws. These words did not come out of the mouth of God. These examples only show us the culture of the Isrealites, they tell us that it was done but God did not command them to do so.


5. If a married man dies and leaves no children, his brother (married or not) must marry the widow (his own sister-in-law). He must then impregnate her so that she might bring up children in the dead brother’s name. (Genesis 38:6–10; Deuteronomy 25:5–10)


This example DOES NOT say if marry or not....it says if the two brothers live together does not mention that the brother must marry the widow whether married or not marry...now you adding to the bible!!!!

You may argue that God approves of such an arrangement, since he permitted polygamy among the ancient Israelites. Yes, the Bible shows that some outstanding servants of God had many wives. Polygamy, however, did not start among God’s people. Remember that he created just one wife for the first man, Adam, “as a complement of him.” (Genesis 2:18-24). God did not create EVE and JESSICA for Adam.

It was not until violent Lamech came on the scene that we read of polygamy. He took two wives. But the specific mention of this suggests that it was an unusual thing in human society even at that time.—Genesis 4:19-24

Polygamy, however, was already a fixture in many tribal societies. So when the Law later given to Moses discussed polygamy, it was not introducing something new. The Law simply regulated an existing institution by man and prevented its abuse. This was done by regulations and restrictions, which tended to discourage plural marriages. (Exodus 21:9-11; Deuteronomy 21:15-17; 1 Samuel 21:3-5; 2 Samuel 11:11).

The majority of Israelites were not polygamists. Polygamy was practiced mainly by the wealthy and the ruling class. God did warn, however, that the king should “not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside.” (Deuteronomy 17:17) And God consistently spoke of model marriages in terms of a single wife.—Psalm 128:3; Proverbs 5:18; 31:10-31.

God did not institute polygamy. It had his approval no more than did divorce, which was also practiced by his people.—Malachi 2:14-16.

Jesus observed: “Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning.” (Matthew 19:8) The same can be said of polygamy. It was not “the case from the beginning.” “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”Matthew 19:4-6

Jesus confirmed the original standard for marriage. (Matthew 19:3-8) The Bible further shows that an overseer in the Christian congregation must, if married, be “a husband of one wife.” Likewise, the “widow” should also have been the “wife of one husband.” This is further evidence that monogamy is the standard for all Christians.

(1 Timothy 3:2; 5:9) So Christian options are clearly either singleness or monogamy. Either is perfectly acceptable to God. (1 Corinthians 7:8, 9)

Ephesians 5:25 reinforces Timothy 3:12 because the analogy of Christ and Church is one to one. So we have one Christ one Church, one deacon one wife, one man (Adam) one woman (Eve)... Theologically we are pushed towards supporting monogamy, one husband and one wife.

The passge from Timothy tells us that our spiritual/moral leader can have but only one wife. This infer is made that if the deacon should only have one wife then the husband should only have one wife.

We can agree that some periods in time, were better than others.
Point in case, medieval times to today.
Some scholars have placed emphasis on certain key social staples that are GOOD for a society.



One of the worst times in history, if not *THE* worst time, was exactly the time when they threw out traditional values -- commonly referred to as the Dark Ages. When most christians were persecuted.

Wow Did you post this format because you
understand dyslexia.
Na can't be thats just a coincidence.
But this is the format that has been discovered
to best help people with the gift of dyslexia.
Yes it is a gift.
Its just that eye to brain wiring is not like most
people.
So just to help you understand if you can.
Text that is on a off white background is best.
Text that is in short columns like in news papers instead of right
across the page is better to follow line to line.
Text like Arial is best.
Sentences that break like a paragraph are clear
and give the dyslexic a break in the text needed
by the brain.
None of the above mean that dyslexic people
are dumb.
It just means we take in and process text
differently than most people. This process
takes more time.
It is believed to be caused by low blood pressure
in the mother.
And this has an effect on brain wiring.
Oh there is that darn brain wiring again.....

:biggie: Is there anything that IS not wrong with you?

1. A poodle is not a person which contradicts the definition. same goes for you referance with the poodle.
2. The definition also refers to a family as domestic, being a nomad contradicts the definition. And what of the nomadic family's in the Bible or any other referance?? They are still family's
3. Dennis Rodman is a freak. No sane person would argue with that. Gay or not.

1) I never took offence to you, what are you talking about?
2) Since I been on BI I have seen at least two threads about Christianity and how stupid it is etc etc
3) The approach of missionaries are a bit different, in fact, every Christian has a different approach. I believe you are being overly zealous about your view of Christians. Not every Christian is a bible pounding condeming person, the ones you meet up here does not represent the entire Christianity group just like how all of the Mulism popluation is not apart of the Taliban. To class a whole group of persons based on a small amount is pure ignorance...and you call yourself a leader of RAB????

I am one of the founding members we have no leader never did.

and what does gay people and/or marriage have to do with healthy traditional families? I can think of a thousand and one reasons why many tradtional marriages arent healthy and not one of them has to do with homosexuality. Its a copout, with a little bit of blame shifting and a whole lot of prejudice thrown in. Its also a medium to inflame certain people (ignite a lil hate in them) to get them fired up about church, donate a lil more money, all while the things you should be worried about continue to get overlooked. I cant believe that people of intelligence can even look at this and believe otherwise.
Let me take a guess......where they passing around the money basket looking for donations on rawson square? Im betting at least twice.
What does church have to do with that question? :dgi:

Are you an adult? Are you a special needs person?
He may be, BUT I'm sure he has a lot of company on BI when it comes to the SPECIAL NEEDS part. :shhh:

Jesus observed: “Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning.” (Matthew 19:8) The same can be said of polygamy. It was not “the case from the beginning.” “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”Matthew 19:4-6
Jesus confirmed the original standard for marriage.
Now watch you cause Vic to stop believing in and quoting the words of Christ. :D