CG:

I agree with you that the majority have been and will be at times wrong. The same is true with the minority. What do you propose? Anarchy and infinite moral elasticity?

When the majority happen to be wrong as in the cases you mentioned it is tragic. However, you cannot compare what I am proposing the majority do by constitutional amendment to the crucifixion of Christ and slavery in the south.

All I am saying is that democracy is still better than anarchy and in democracy, moral boundaries are determined by the majority. If the majority of people in our country decided they wanted to give legal status to unions other than heterosexual adult unions, I would have to live with seeing such unions. From a personal point of view I still would not see them as legitimate.

Obviously, I'm grateful that the majority see this issue as I do on this one. In a democracy, that's not always the case. I have been on the side of the minority and will no doubt be again in the future.

So CG, what do you propose...infinite moral elasticity so long as it does not hurt anyone else?

CG:

I agree with you that the majority have been and will be at times wrong. The same is true with the minority. What do you propose? Anarchy and infinite moral elasticity?

When the majority is truly wrong as in the cases you mentioned it is tragic. However, you cannot compare what I am proposing the majority do by constitutional amendment to the crucifixion of Christ and slavery in the south.

All I am saying is that democracy is still better than anarchy and in democracy, moral boundaries are determined by the majority. If the majority of people in our country decided they wanted to give legal status to unions other than heterosexual adult unions, I would have to live with seeing such unions. From a personal point of view I still would not see them as legitimate.

Obviously, I'm grateful that the majority see this issue as I do on this one. In a democracy, that's not always the case. I have been on the side of the minority and will no doubt be again in the future.

So CG, what do you propose...infinite moral elasticity so long as it does not hurt anyone else?

What makes you think that we don't already have "infinite moral elasticity?" True, most of it is underground, but it is here already. In the Bahamas the heterosexual moral elasticity is legendary. Many children born here are, I hate to use the word, illegitimate? Yet they have rights - as it should be.

All I am talking about is what I like to call the "Phoniness Factor." Why should one have such strong feelings against one groups "sins" while ignoring their own? Why should we pretend we are moral? Perhaps that is just human nature. The truth is that folks will do pretty much what they want. The only "brakes" on this should be - "does it hurt anyone else?"

CG:

My point is not about whether or not we already have infinite moral elasticity in relationships being practised by persons in our society. My point is that I and (the majority of persons, I reasonably believe) do not support the state granting acceptance and legitimization/legalizations to these other unions because to do so is to encourage that which is destructive to society.

On the other hand, based on your rule that the only "brakes" should be if it harms anyone else you, like Vicky, are arguing for a society where people are free to be nude in public, have sexual intercourse in public between two consenting adults (in open spaces like on the park and on the beach where there is room for all to do what they want), engage in prostitution and the commercial sex trade between consenting adults, use and abuse cocaine and marijuana use for adults (as they are allowed to do with alcohol - a contradiction in my view), and use profanity etc.

CG, you seem to be running from a point of reality...we need boundaries and they many times are subjective and the best way (not perfect) to arrive at what those boundaries should be is democratically (the will of the majority).

To help you think through this, consider the following: Our laws currently allow heterosexual sex between persons 16 years and older (I agree with the practice but not the age...should be 18) and homosexual sex between persons who are 18 and older (I disagree with the practise but agree with the age). In my view, the age for all sexual activity should be 18 because it is the age of adulthood/majority in our country. All of these ages are subjective. Even our age of majority (18) is a subjective. On what do we base it? Don't get me wrong...I agree with it but why not 17 or 19 or 21 or 30 or 15? No matter what age you choose, you discriminate and discrimination is not a bad word in and of itself...it simply means to judge or discern between.

So CG, bearing in mind your statement, "The only "brakes" on this should be - "does it hurt anyone else?", do you support:

1. An age of majority and if so how do you propose we arrive at it without discriminating?
2. Putting any age "brakes" on sexual activity?

Rev. Moss you said, ".....do you support:
1. An age of majority and if so how do you propose we arrive at it without discriminating?"
Yes, there should be an age of majority, and I agree with you it should be 18. The reason? Because it does hurt kids when they have sex too young. Brakes are needed here because someone is getting hurt. However, if two homosexuals (over 18) get married - who is hurt?

2. Putting any age "brakes" on sexual activity?
Common decency should rule here. Thinking of others feeling should rule here as well. Doing in public what should be done in private is distasteful at best, no matter who does it. I have no trouble supporting that. Yet, what two people (of age) do behind closed doors is their business.

You seem to suggest that the world will fall apart if homosexuals were allowed to marry. I seem to remember from my history that, that has been said when any new idea or change is on the horizon, from Galileo to Darwin to the birth control pill to Women's votes - yet we are still here! We survived all that, we can survive gay marriages.

You seem to be missing the point. You seem to be saying that anyone who supports Gay marriage supports abandonment of all restraints. That is not the case.

Let me give you an analogy. Let us suppose that a bill was to be passed allowing Grand Prix Race Cars to drive on the streets of Nassau. One might argue that there would be speeding all over the place! Other cars would become "infected" with the desire to speed and all traffic laws would be abandoned. The truth would be that the Race cars would be subject to the same traffic laws as any car. They would have to comply with the law as well.

Should gays marry, they too would be subject to the same laws of decency, public nudity etc. as anyone else, no laws would be abandoned.

Why do you think it is an all or nothing case?

Hi CG and Cedric
THANK YOU CG. I could not have said it better my self.

Cedric you wrote: Post 13
“While you continue to talk about equality being denied to homosexual couples what you really mean is legal acceptance/recognition is being denied. One of the necessary realities of democracy is that all views cannot be reflected at the same time, only the view of the majority. What you are proposing is anarchy…anything goes (meaning any combinations of consenting persons who want to form a marriage/civil union should be given legal status by the state). Each society has to determine what is best for it and democracy is better than anarchy…at least this is what they majority of Bahamians obviously think.”

Cedric let me give you a summery
You feel that the skin the Creator gave you is something to be ashamed of. You think that having sex is something to be ashamed of. And all the other things you listed.
Let me ask you, is anything created by the Creator shameful?????
You purpose that consenting adults as long as they are not hurting anyone would result in anarchy. Now that is a long stretch for any one to believe.

Cedric you say majority of Bahamians obviously think homosexuality is wrong. You are so right on that point.
1 How can the majority even understand homosexuality when they are heterosexual?
2 It has been what was taught to them from birth.
3 Still does not make it right.

Cedric your wrote:
Here is my summary response to our dialogue on the point of granting legal accommodation to homosexual unions. As I said, it is not helpful for us to discuss this fromve you a summery a Biblical perspective because we are poles a part on Biblical understanding and interpretation. On the other hand we can discuss it from a common sense societal viewpoint.

Cedric let me give you a summery
Yes we are very different in our faith and belief in Christ. You can’t answer the questions I have given you Biblical or social perspective. Because you know as soon as you do you will have to admit you are mistaken. I will say this you are not the first homophobic Christian leader I have squared off with and when we get to this point they go silent.
Are you sure in your faith to go on from here???

Here are my questions again.
The Old Testament contains the laws of the Holiness Code.
1 Who decides what laws in the Holiness Code apply???
2 What is the purpose of the Holiness Code??
3 Let me ask you, is anything created by the Creator shameful????? (Just in case you missed it.)
3 If Christ said nothing about homosexuality why are you making such a big deal out of it?? Don’t you think that Christ would know how important it would be and have said something???
5 What effect on your life will it have if Sam and Joe have a state recognized union??



Cedric you wrote:
My point is not about whether or not we already have infinite moral elasticity in relationships being practiced by persons in our society. My point is that I and (the majority of persons, I reasonably believe) do not support the state granting acceptance and legitimization/legalizations to these other unions because to do so is to encourage that which is destructive to society.

6 How is granting acceptance and legitimization/legalizations of same sex unions destructive to society????

Cedric why don’t you come clean with your congregation one Sunday.

Teach them:
The real history of the Bible they read.

How a group of men got together with a Pagan Roman Emperor named Constantine to put together what would be the official version of the Bible because he was paying for it. And that this group of men for money decided what would and would not be in the Bible.

That this same Emperor Constantine changed the birth date of Christ to be the same as the pagan holiday of the sun god for the winter solstice. Also how he changed the death and resection date to match the pagan goddess Easter.

That the Sodom story is not of homosexual love but of rape and rape has nothing to do with homosexuality it is violence against another human.

Of all the atrocities done in the name of Christ.

How for hundreds of years Christians and Christian leaders murdered and tortured men women and children in the name of Christ.

How people were executed for simply being left handed (ask how many in your congregation are left handed)

How mid wives and people who knew and used bush medicine were executed for witchcraft. (Ask you congregation how many of the use bush medicine).

How these religious leaders were only human and made mistakes and misinterpretation of the Bible for hundreds or years.

How many people were taught these things from birth and believed and practiced them. To the point where even a mother would had over her child to religious authorities because the child was left-handed.

How you and all the religious leaders are only human and can be just as mistaken as the previous Christians.

How it is faith and that faith is something you believe with out proof.

How you want them to make other Bahamians (human beings) less equal because of their sexual orientation and you want them to do this based on a book that was put together by a group of men being paid by a Pagan Roman Emperor.

That King James the same king James who had the Bible rewritten was a practicing homosexual.
Teach them that you don’t really understand homosexuality just as a right-handed person can’t understand what it is to be left-handed.

Ask them if they think its right to deny equality to fellow Bahamians based on faith. A faith that could be just as misinterpreted and a mistaken as it was in the past.

Don’t try to bend the truth or to soften it.

Tell me which Sunday and I will cross the threshold of your church and come in.