There are those in our society who hold the view that allowing same sex unions would be harmless to marriages. Well, I do not agree and neither does Stanley Kurtz. He did an excellent piece for the Weekly Standard to make the case. Those who are interested can take the time to read it.
Click here to download the pdf document. (http://www.bahamasissues.com/docs/End_of_Marriage_In_Scandanavia.pdf)

You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this file so click the image below to download the Reader if you don't have it: http://www.bahamasissues.com/images/acrobat.gif (http://ardownload.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/6.x/6.0/enu/AdbeRdr60_enu_full.exe)

What does it mean to us? Simply that we don't have to experiment with same sex marriages. Lets learn from the 15 year experiment/mistake of Scandinavian countries and stay far from that experimental street.

We can meanwhile allow those persons who want to experiment on that street to go there as long as they wish but without any from of legal sanctioning from the state.

So lets learn from the mistake of others.

Hi Cedric
Well-written article. So one sided and so full of it you need a shovel to get through it, Propaganda that is.
Again you are using people ignorance to creat fear.
You are trying to convince whom? That Bahamians don’t already know about shacking up and having babies out of wedlock. We probably have a higher rate than any of the other countries listed on the paper. To imply that the rate of children born out of wedlock in these countries is because of homosexual union is a very long stretch. Page 4 2nd paragraph “Swedes themselves link the decline of marriage to secularism”. Hmm not homosexuality. This man who wrote this article is creating link where there are none.
Or should I say Blaming dogs for high tides because they bark at the moon.
Percentages have to rise in these things. Here you have a family that has 3 children out of wedlock they grow up in a home out of wedlock. They them selves have 3 children each now there are 9 children out of wedlock. And so on. Teen mothers and single mothers Hmm look at home first and we have no legal same sex union.

Divorce rate now that’s a good one how does this writer make the link between divorce and same sex union. Oh maybe one of the spouses decides not to live a lie and admits they are gay or lesbian and divorces. But that is a case that they should have not entered into a heterosexual marriage to begin with.

The collapse of marriage etc. in Scandinavian countries has nothing to do with Gay marriages. It has a lot to do with the loss of credibility of the local Churches there. If we, in the Bahamas, are to learn from their mistakes then we should learn that the church there has failed to keeps its mythology up to date. As a result - no one listens.

isnt marriage not just christian, dont other religions etc have it also? Please excuse my ignorance, I only know of the christian marriage but I thought I saw somewhere that other religions also have their own marriage, such as jewish etc.

I can definately understand it that if they are trying to get married in a christian church, same sex marriage is not christian, so then that is straight forward, correct me if Im wrong, havent read the whole bible myself :-) just what we were tought in school, new testament, the life of Jesus.

Rory

isnt marriage not just christian, dont other religions etc have it also? Please excuse my ignorance, I only know of the christian marriage but I thought I saw somewhere that other religions also have their own marriage, such as jewish etc.

I can definately understand it that if they are trying to get married in a christian church, same sex marriage is not christian, so then that is straight forward, correct me if Im wrong, havent read the whole bible myself :-) just what we were tought in school, new testament, the life of Jesus.

Rory

You are right there! Marriage is not exclusively a Christian institution. All religions have a marriage ceremony. In fact marriage predate Christianity - as indeed most religions do.

Also, you are right again! If Gay people wished to get married and the Church finds it unacceptable then they would have to get married somewhere else - as indeed many Christians choose to do so. What makes a marriage legal is the "blessing" of the State not a religion. A religion provides the ceremony - the State makes it legal.

P.S. Here is one for the books! I just heard on the TV that a woman in France married a dead man! It seems that is legal there. About twenty such marriage take place each year in France!!!

isnt marriage not just christian, dont other religions etc have it also? Please excuse my ignorance, I only know of the christian marriage but I thought I saw somewhere that other religions also have their own marriage, such as jewish etc.

I can definately understand it that if they are trying to get married in a christian church, same sex marriage is not christian, so then that is straight forward, correct me if Im wrong, havent read the whole bible myself :-) just what we were tought in school, new testament, the life of Jesus.

Rory
You mean not in the faith of Christianity most people practice today. I will say again the majority is not always right. Traditional beliefs are not always right.
Christ him self stood up against a faith majority of people practiced he stood up against the traditions of that faith.
By the way Christ never said anything about homosexuality.

Suggestion before you start studying the Bible research its history so you can put what you read into prospective. Read it with an open mind ask questions not just off those that are clergy but also of those that have a different perspective as well. You must understand most clergy have gone to school and as a result been taught how to think.

Those who support the idea of same sex marriage have to bear in mind that the same reasoning used to justify the marriage of two men or two women who are unrelated (constitutional rights, non-discrimination etc.) can be used to argue for marriages between the following persons:

1. A man and his adult son
2. A woman and her adult daughter
3. A man and his adult daughter (provided one is sterilized…for those who will argue against it because of the possibility of deformed children).
4. A woman and her adult son (provided one is sterilized…for those who will argue against it because of the possibility of deformed children).
5. Two adult brothers
6. Two adult sisters
7. Groups of adults (any number and combination of them who mutually agree to marry).
8. Other creative unions.

I know that Vicky supports all of these unions (see his posts under “The Barn’s on Fire – Part 2” in this BI section)…so Vicky you do not have to respond. However, I would like the others to respond though…just to help me see if there are others who believe that the state should legitimize any type of union between adults (any combination or amount).

Also, the same reasoning for same sex unions can be used to justify, public nudity, sex in public (heterosexual or homosexual, group or couple so long as they do not obstruct the space of others…like on a beach or park)

The reality is that all civilized societies discriminate against certain conduct and people. To not do so invites anarchy. The question is how much discrimination, not whether we discriminate. I propose discriminating against and prohibiting legal accommodation for ALL non male/female adult unions (they are free to live together informally and do as they wish privately). Don’t think I’m too hard because many who support homosexual unions propose discriminating against and prohibiting polygamy, and family same sex marriages (as outlined in the above list). I can’t see how, because while they accuse me of discriminating, they do so as well. So again, the issue is how much discrimination. Only those who are anarchists will not be found guilty of some form of discrimination in this area.

You mean not in the faith of Christianity most people practice today. I will say again the majority is not always right. Traditional beliefs are not always right.
Christ him self stood up against a faith majority of people practiced he stood up against the traditions of that faith.
By the way Christ never said anything about homosexuality.

Suggestion before you start studying the Bible research its history so you can put what you read into prospective. Read it with an open mind ask questions not just off those that are clergy but also of those that have a different perspective as well. You must understand most clergy have gone to school and as a result been taught how to think.

im not studying the bible.

im not studying the bible.

Maybe you should! It is an interesting read!

Those who support the idea of same sex marriage have to bear in mind that the same reasoning used to justify the marriage of two men or two women who are unrelated (constitutional rights, non-discrimination etc.) can be used to argue for marriages between the following persons:

1. A man and his adult son
2. A woman and her adult daughter
3. A man and his adult daughter (provided one is sterilized…for those who will argue against it because of the possibility of deformed children).
4. A woman and her adult son (provided one is sterilized…for those who will argue against it because of the possibility of deformed children).
5. Two adult brothers
6. Two adult sisters
7. Groups of adults (any number and combination of them who mutually agree to marry).
8. Other creative unions.

I know that Vicky supports all of these unions (see his posts under “The Barn’s on Fire – Part 2” in this BI section)…so Vicky you do not have to respond. However, I would like the others to respond though…just to help me see if there are others who believe that the state should legitimize any type of union between adults (any combination or amount).

Also, the same reasoning for same sex unions can be used to justify, public nudity, sex in public (heterosexual or homosexual, group or couple so long as they do not obstruct the space of others…like on a beach or park)

The reality is that all civilized societies discriminate against certain conduct and people. To not do so invites anarchy. The question is how much discrimination, not whether we discriminate. I propose discriminating against and prohibiting legal accommodation for ALL non male/female adult unions (they are free to live together informally and do as they wish privately). Don’t think I’m too hard because many who support homosexual unions propose discriminating against and prohibiting polygamy, and family same sex marriages (as outlined in the above list). I can’t see how, because while they accuse me of discriminating, they do so as well. So again, the issue is how much discrimination. Only those who are anarchists will not be found guilty of some form of discrimination in this area.

I posted the message below at another tread. You did not answer it. So I post it again as it relates to this thread

"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:

I initially did not respond because you seem to be missing my point and I did not have the time to explain it. Perhaps I'm not communicating effectively so I'll try again.

Once you establish that any decision you make is based on morality and public decency, as you have done, you really are not much different from me...its just a matter of degrees. Vicky understands this point well. He believes that the only prohibition should be if it harms someone else so there should be not prohibitions or public decency rules where others are not being harmed (as in the case of the list of marriage combinations and activities I mentioned).

You are advocating that we only allow homosexual marriage (two men or two women) in addition to heterosexual marriage (one woman and one man). I want to allow one combination only (one man and one woman) and you want to allow three. My point is this: On what basis can you then deny polygamous marriages (consenting adults of any number and combination) who wish to marry? How can you deny homosexual familial marriages? The same arguments apply.

While I disagree with Vicky's views, I must say that Vicky is consistent...he will allow consenting adults of any number and combination to be given legal unions by the state. I think this is because Vicky understands my ultimate point...the reasoning for all other marriage combinations is the same.

But you seem to only want to extend marriage to two other combinations (two men and two women). Why would you stop there when the others can use the same argument you use for same sex marriage? Based on your reasoning for same sex unions, please share if you agree with the marriage combinations I listed previously. My guess CG is that you believe in discrimination as well, you are just a little more liberal than me.

You also don't seem to see that 18 as the age of majority is a moral, subjective decision. Why not 16 which is the legal age for heterosexual sex (homosexual sex is 18)? How can you justify supporting 18 without admitting that it is a subjective moral judgement about what people at certain ages should be and should not be allowed to do legally?

I don't want to run on but I hope this is now clearer.

Hi, Rev Moss.
(Was that you on the radio the other day? I enjoyed it.)


Once you establish that any decision you make is based on morality and public decency, as you have done, you really are not much different from me...its just a matter of degrees. .

That is true! But remember, at one time is was illegal (in some parts of the world) for Blacks to marry Whites. That offended public decency. Things change! Also, you are assuming that Gay marriage is indecent. I can see that, as you subscribe to the Bible. I respect that but why impose your beliefs on others?

You are advocating that we only allow homosexual marriage (two men or two women) in addition to heterosexual marriage (one woman and one man). I want to allow one combination only (one man and one woman) and you want to allow three. .

Again true. But the tide of public opinion (world wide) is against you. Gay marriages are happening in many parts of the world and the world has not ended.


My point is this: On what basis can you then deny polygamous marriages (consenting adults of any number and combination) who wish to marry? How can you deny homosexual familial marriages? The same arguments apply. .

Polygamous marriages are sanctioned in some societies, it is even found in the Bible. On what basis can you deny Polygamous marriage? I guess you deny it (as I do) because society has stopped it. Why cannot the same society start gay marriage? All I am saying is let the societies decide. I am sure that if Gay marriage was put to a vote here it would lose, but not by as much as many would think - people's thinking has advanced. One day it may advance to allow same sex unions.

But you seem to only want to extend marriage to two other combinations (two men and two women). Why would you stop there when the others can use the same argument you use for same sex marriage? .

It is quite possible that, that might happen. But not today! The issue is Gay marriage only. Why do you think that this is an, all or nothing issue? Other countries have allowed Gay marriage and as far as I know "others" have not asked for the legal O.K. Are you trying to cloud the issue?


Based on your reasoning for same sex unions, please share if you agree with the marriage combinations I listed previously. My guess CG is that you believe in discrimination as well, you are just a little more liberal than me..

Right you are. I am a bit more liberal. I have stated my reason above and below.

You also don't seem to see that 18 as the age of majority is a moral, subjective decision. Why not 16 which is the legal age for heterosexual sex (homosexual sex is 18)? How can you justify supporting 18 without admitting that it is a subjective moral judgement about what people at certain ages should be and should not be allowed to do legally?.

Of course a line must be drawn to protect the young and that line is not just subjective it is based on the fact that the decision making capabilities of the young are not as developed as those of more mature years.

You are communicating well and I understand your view - you want to shut out Gay marriage based on a scripture that is 2000+ years old and has not kept pace with the world as we know it. ‘Times are a changin' Keep up or be left behind.

I think you understand Vicky because he seems to be supporting your view that if Gays marry anarchy will follow and anything will go. This is not the case. (Anarchy, I mean.)

Hi Cedric again you put words into my mouth or may be you misunderstand.
I believe adults have the right to choose as long as they are not hurting anyone. Your faith my faith or anyone else’s faith can’t be used to dictate to adults who they can share their lives with. If they are going to do it anyway giving them the right to legal/state union is only fair to recognize the rights of their loved ones.
If you and your fellow so called Christians want to keep marriage as 1 man and one woman in your churches so be it. Do so you don’t have to do a marriage ceremony if you don’t want to. But out side you church is another story.

CG I don’t know if I understand your last remark:
“I think you understand Vicky because he seems to be supporting your view that if Gays marry anarchy will follow and anything will go. This is not the case. (Anarchy, I mean.)”

I don’t think Anarchy will follow. I think people are beginning to wake up as to the fact that these so-called Christian leaders are no more in touch with the Creator than they are. Thus these so-called Christian leaders are losing their power over people lives. People are seeing that these so-called Christian leaders are not them selves living as Christ taught. The hypocrisy in their words and lives is coming out. The get rich quick scam is to now claim that you are called by Creator. Then you tell the people what they want to hear give them something to fear and hate next thing you know you are rich. All of these so-called Christian leaders that walk past a person poorer than they are and don’t even look twice much less help them are hypocrites. All who have a car and drive past the poor are hypocrites. They are supposed to be Christian leaders. Would Christ drive past a person walking or would he offer a ride. They spend millions of dollars on them selves and their churches (not Christ Churches), which are locked after mass. When there are homeless and hungry. Yes they call them selves’ Christian leaders. They would be the first to drive the nail.


Cedric you said
“It should be clear to those who follow this issue that the marriage and civil union cries of homosexual couples really have nothing to do with any legal difficulties. Every one of those cries can be answered through means afforded by our current laws. Here’s what I mean: A homosexual couple can purchase property together, make a joint will, grant each other far reaching powers of attorney for sickness, incapacity, death and whatever legal agreements they wish. Therefore, they do not need any legal accommodation for their union. That being the case, it is easier to see that what homosexual couples really seek is not a legal union in itself but general acceptance and a “legitimizing” of their unions by the state so as to remove the stigma attached to it.”

Do you really think I need you or anyone else to legitimize my being transgendered. Do you per pose you know more about me than I know about me. If you or anyone else has a problem with my being and living transgendered that is you’re /their problem not mine. People who are different don’t need your approval.
Ah yes the stigma attached to being different. How about the stigma of being born out of wedlock, is a child really illegitimate? Is this child/person less human?????? Are they different? They were different. There is little to no stigma now but a few years ago is another story. I even know of a woman who was refused all contact with her family mother father sisters (because of their so called Christian beliefs.) because she had a baby out of wedlock. The hurtful thing the baby was excommunicated as well. Time changes and so do ideals values and morals and the change is continuous.

CG I don’t know if I understand your last remark:
“I think you understand Vicky because he seems to be supporting your view that if Gays marry anarchy will follow and anything will go. This is not the case. (Anarchy, I mean.)”

The good Rev's position is that if one allows Gay marriage then the flood gates will be open to all kinds of behavior. He seems to think that you would support any kind of behavior, no matter how destructive to society. You set the limit - as long as it did not hurt anyone. The gray area is, whom is "anyone" and what is "hurt?" I think, and I fear I may be putting words in the Rev. mouth, if so I apologize - "Gay marriage will hurt us all." This is not a position I share.

Hi CG:

You did put words in my mouth. What I said is that the same arguments used to demand homosexual marriage (rights, non-discrimination, does not hurt anyone etc.) are the same arguments that are used to support the list of unions I previously noted. All I'm saying is that you would be unfair to allow homosexual marriage but deny all the other combinations and variations I listed since they are all consenting adults and do not hurt anyone also.

My point is that Vicky understands this reasoning well, and therefore, to be consistent, supports granting legal accommodation to ANY and ALL combinations and variations of human unions possible (so long as they are consenting adults and don't hurth anyone).

I have not made this a religious issue. Marriage is a legal union regulated by the state. It is a moral decision that states decide upon in terms of who can marry. Vicky does not want it to be moral, hence his position.

So CG, the issue is that the result of moving the current boundary line of marriage to ONLY include homosexual marriage is unfair to all the other union combinations that rightly are using the same argument for legitimacy that persons are using for homosexual marriage. How can you deny them when you permit homosexual unions?

The bottom line is that marriage as we know it would be destroyed, not redefined. It is logical to see that once you move beyond the boundary of one man one woman marriage, fairness demands that you see it as Vicky does and that results in legitimized marital anarchy. That will hurt us as a society, not doubt about it.

Now CG, I'd like to hear your response since I've clarified this.