Now watch you cause Vic to stop believing in and quoting the words of Christ. :D


Vic do what??? You know you full of jokes :)

same goes for you referance with the poodle. And what of the nomadic family's in the Bible or any other referance?? They are still family's


1. Yes, I know the same goes for the poodle reference. That's kinda why I made it.

2. What nomadic families in the bible??

3. You don't have a definition of "family", do you??

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.

Well then you don't know the law.
Right here right now in the Bahamas same sex union can be reality.
The Marriage law stats that 2 persons can be married it does not say 1 man 1 woman.
When RAB discussed this with lawyers it is just an understood policy that same sex marriage is not possible because 1 of the reasons for divorce is homosexual adultery. So when contested that heterosexual adult is also cause for divorce that all heterosexual marriage is also not possible.
The lawyers said it can be contested in the courts and would probably win. We just have not had any GLBT couples that want to marry and want to contest the policy. You see the marriage laws would have to be re written and chapter 3 of the constitution would need to be rewritten and non discrimination based on sex would have to be removed. Other than that all we need are couples willing to contest a policy vs the constitution.

Well then you don't know the law.
Right here right now in the Bahamas same sex union can be reality.
The Marriage law stats that 2 persons can be married it does not say 1 man 1 woman.
When RAB discussed this with lawyers it is just an understood policy that same sex marriage is not possible because 1 of the reasons for divorce is homosexual adultery. So when contested that heterosexual adult is also cause for divorce that all heterosexual marriage is also not possible.
The lawyers said it can be contested in the courts and would probably win. We just have not had any GLBT couples that want to marry and want to contest the policy. You see the marriage laws would have to be re written and chapter 3 of the constitution would need to be rewritten and non discrimination based on sex would have to be removed. Other than that all we need are couples willing to contest a policy vs the constitution.
So if no one is willing to contest this, whats your purpose? :dgi:

So if no one is willing to contest this, whats your purpose? :dgi:


It seems that they are willing to call for change but when it comes to being the first to fly in the face of all that Bahamians hold so dear no gay in this country is willing to have the stigma and resentment of the entire country directed at them.

Well then you don't know the law.
Right here right now in the Bahamas same sex union can be reality.
The Marriage law stats that 2 persons can be married it does not say 1 man 1 woman.
When RAB discussed this with lawyers it is just an understood policy that same sex marriage is not possible because 1 of the reasons for divorce is homosexual adultery. So when contested that heterosexual adult is also cause for divorce that all heterosexual marriage is also not possible.
The lawyers said it can be contested in the courts and would probably win. We just have not had any GLBT couples that want to marry and want to contest the policy. You see the marriage laws would have to be re written and chapter 3 of the constitution would need to be rewritten and non discrimination based on sex would have to be removed. Other than that all we need are couples willing to contest a policy vs the constitution.


1) You accuse me of saying that Bahamian law is Christian law, which is not true...that's the reason for my "according definition" post.
2) It still doesn't refute my orginal point that The Bahamas Constitution was form based on Christian Values. When it says two persons they were not thinking of homosexuals it was unhear of, so obviously they were meaning heterosexuals because at the time there were no homosexuals out in the open much less wanting to marry!!! So it is ASSUMED that 2 persons meaning a man and a woman. They should have been more specific. Of course you won't see my point, you would believe that it was written with homosexuals in mind but if you can find proof of this that's fine.
3) So, according to you and RAB lawyers why haven't there been same-sex marriages? I know I saw some stats that said same-sex marriages don't last long.

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.
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 don't read the Bible do you.
Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (King James Version)
5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
7And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
8Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
9Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
10And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
I can post the rest but you can read them for your selves

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. Can you prove this???? 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. We been through the Adam and Eve story already and its just a story. It is not law or a referance for marriage
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 Really you were there???? "Polygamy, however, did not start among God’s people." Here we go round the mulberry bush the mulberry bush the mulberry bush early in the morning...
Polygamy, however, was already a fixture in many tribal societies. How many tribes where around in Lamech time. 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).
Another fine example of Biblical Marriage.
What is none of the wives are hated..
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 (King James Version)
15If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:



The majority of Israelites were not polygamists.I am so glad you were there so you could tell us these things. 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)
Its about greed of a king
Deuteronomy 17:16-18 (King James Version)
16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

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)Uh In context this is a referance of divorce. Would a man divorce all his wives at once...
Matthew 19:8 (King James Version)
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Oh and read on please.
Matthew 19:9 (King James Version)
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Now thats food for thought. How many divorced women been remarried???

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) Jesus was responding to a question of divorce not marriage.

Matthew 19:3-12 (King James Version)
3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Would a man divorce all his wives at once??

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)
Ok marriage rules for the clergy whats your point

So Christian options are clearly either singleness or monogamy. Either is perfectly acceptable to God. (1 Corinthians 7:8-9) Words of Paul and man who never knew Jesus.
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.

Even if he is not a deacon hhhhhmmmm.

Sorry the Laws in the Bible and many other referances show marriage is not just 1 man and 1 woman.

Please try again.

Didn't know defining "Family" would be this difficult.

Didn't know defining "Family" would be this difficult.

Rory posted a very good definition of family

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

Why do you say wrong its only different..

Rory posted a very good definition of family


No, he did not.

That definition was loaded with discrimination. And we can't have that. Gotta change it. Isn't that what you want??


Rory:

You said something I missed. That the term "traditional family" differed around the world. That's actually incorrect. Traditional families around the world do match the definition that you used. I'm having a hard time thinking of one that does not.

You don't read the Bible do you.
Matthew 19:8 (King James Version)
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Now thats food for thought. How many divorced women been remarried???
Jesus was responding to a question of divorce not marriage.
Matthew 19:3-12 (King James Version)
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

So if no one is willing to contest this, whats your purpose? :dgi:

Its a matter of time and its not something we are pushing it will have to be something the couple wants. Most just fly up to Canada or some place same sex union is Legal and there is nothing on the laws books that says same sex unions are not recognized.

It seems that they are willing to call for change but when it comes to being the first to fly in the face of all that Bahamians hold so dear no gay in this country is willing to have the stigma and resentment of the entire country directed at them.

If I was not already married I would have the first Tg to wife marriage.

Well then you don't know the law.
Right here right now in the Bahamas same sex union can be reality.
The Marriage law stats that 2 persons can be married it does not say 1 man 1 woman.
When RAB discussed this with lawyers it is just an understood policy that same sex marriage is not possible because 1 of the reasons for divorce is homosexual adultery. So when contested that heterosexual adult is also cause for divorce that all heterosexual marriage is also not possible.
The lawyers said it can be contested in the courts and would probably win. We just have not had any GLBT couples that want to marry and want to contest the policy. You see the marriage laws would have to be re written and chapter 3 of the constitution would need to be rewritten and non discrimination based on sex would have to be removed. Other than that all we need are couples willing to contest a policy vs the constitution.
TRADITION! In the days before the written word, it was handed down from generation to generation.You are an abomination,albeit, one that most are willing to openly accept,but where do you or anyone get the collossal nerve to demand,leave mind suggest that the majority of society should redefine a basic building block of our society,to suit your own need?I do not rule it out in good time,after your kind has proven their societal value,it may come to pass,but to stand on your soap box and demand constitutional change?:mad: