Gay marriage may seem to some people in Barbados to be crazy liberal nonsense but the UK and Barbados are at different points of the same development timeline.
Britain legalised homosexuality in 1967. Homosexuality is not illegal in Barbados, of course, just buggery, but people here are just starting to tentatively mention that scrapping the buggery law should be discussed.
Almost two complete generations have grown up in the UK with open gay relationships as accepted and normal and most do not see why gay marriage is wrong. Why would they, when being gay has been openly accepted for nearly 50 years?
Barbados will legalise buggery at some point. It will probably be done in some grudging way, as overt political support for it could be a vote loser as it would be seen as “promotion” of homosexuality. It was the same in the UK. In 1967 the UK Home Secretary said “those who suffer from this disability carry a great weight of shame all their lives” but they still passed the law.
We just need to get the debate over so we reach a sane position.

@St.George’s Dragon

Agree with you. There is a certain inevitability about the debate.

@ac

The issue in this instance is whether the Church must marry same sex couples.

yes the instance is about wether the church should marry same sex . but the law only is partially attempting to do so. it gives the church a way out of not having to perform same sex marriages . the church of england is already on record against same sex marriages .so what purpose is the law if it does not function to the fullest extent of what it set out to do! i don’t see nothing spectacular or earthshattering about the proposed law just another politician jocketing for position.l it still does not answer the crtical question of gays being married in churches without having to seek reprisal or condemnation from the church of england .the proposal is a sofetening up of the issue .

Gays petition for legal rights themselves
http://www.change.org/topics/gayrights

the biggest hindrance to same sex marriage is the institution of the goverance with in the church of england .therfore i am at loss as to how the law is going to impact change within that instituion and other organizations of similiar thought. same sex marriage is legal. but also can be denied those who choose to opt out citing curch law and theology. where is the law? less we forgot that embodied within the law must be the human rights guaranteed for all which must be abide by all.until such agreed upon by all the law is only a band aid approach to a problem which could be compounded by the church refusal to adhere.. with activist seeking refuge through courts via lawsuits.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults, whether same sex, opposite sex, black, or white. Still, it is a religious organization’s right to refuse to marry. Marriage is not a requirement under religion; it is a notion of the state/country, with the various customs left to the religious organizations. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against certain people in terms of admission or service because businesses take something from the state/country in order to operate – e.g., service permits and licenses – so they are “of the state/country.” Therefore, their ability to turn people away should be limited.

As an aside, the fact that this is a big issue for Barbados with all of the other pressing economic and poverty issues affecting the country, is tragic comedy.

well if there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage and gay relationships why stop there? if its their right to exercise their sexual orientation even if its not in line with what God wants then forget about the commandments and let everyone do as they like after all its their right to choose is it not? so let the robbers rob its their right to CHOOSE how they make their living, wow this thing really amazes me and people often want to attack the church just when its convenient, sickening.

islandgal246 | December 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM |
And where in the ten commandments does it refer to homosexual activity?
…………………………………………………………………………….
Exodus 20:17 ………… thou shall not covet thy neighbours ass.

the bible speaks out against homosexuality, not in the commandments, yes it may be in the church so what if the church was jumping into a well would we also follow, the Lord gave us the ability to think, poor argument @island girl, @ buggy good one lol

@David “If we extrapolate from how the Laity voted on women in the role of Bishop one can predict similarly on the matter of the Church of England marrying same sex couple”

But David, what if the laity is composed of a lot of gay people.

Right here in this Barbados we have a whole lotta gay laity on church councils, church boards etc.

You see unlike the church priests/pastors who are paid to go to church and attend church administrative meetings and unlike the gay laity who mostly have no children to raise, the people in the pews have better things to do than to go to endless church council/board laity meetings.

So the gay people do the church work. The gay people do not have to go home and cook, clean and wash for their children.

If the gay Michelangelo had to go home and cook, wash and clean for 10 children do you think he would have had the time to paint pretty pictures on church ceilings?

So there you have the reason for so many hard working dedicated gay people in the churches.

@ Simple Simon
Brilliant logic, sound reasoning, and careful analysis…..and in the churches is where they belong, the blind leading the blind.

Bushie sees absolutely NO REASON why this is an issue. They can marry, have women bishops, fight…whatever…
What church what?!
These are just a collection of clubs of people who generally have nothing better to do, and who are hoping that somehow, despite his lack of logic, conviction or common sense support, Zoe can get them to Heaven – where food is free and angels do all the work (LOL, no wonder so many Bajans go to church…)

Take note that all of the major religions, and all the minor ones too are younger that agriculture.

Once women had started to practice agriculture about 5,000 years ago, men had less to do and so they invented religions.

And then they invented war (often over religious foolishness)

Take note that the gods, prophets, religious texts and icons are overwhelming male centric.

Why do you think that this is so?

Because men don’t have anything better to do.

Simple Simon girl I agree with you 99% and the mistake the men made was to open the schools and universities to women. Now the menz doan know wha hit dem. Bushie can attest to that. Doggie alone ent good enuff to keep a woman happy!

@ David
How Bushie blaspheming? You can’t mean the wives, cause Bushie still waiting on Islandgal to get closer to four…. 🙂

@ Simple Simon
Bushie agrees with most of what you say too… Except that Bushie have more details than Islandgal.
…what REALLY happened was that, after moving in with a few women such as Islandgal, the old fellows realized that in order to escape the resulting torture, it actually made more sense to form churches and have a rule that excluded women.
After a few hundred years more women were in church than men, making life THERE miserable as hell too… So the men created war – where they could kill each other in peace without the lotta women messing up everything.

As we all know, women have now forced their way into battle, which only leave us men with one alternative….
..press the damn red button and blow up the whole shebang!

….this is scheduled for Dec 21, 2012.

What happen? You want to get in on this big do too?

‘Sex and Culture’

Oxford anthropologist J. D. Unwin’s work on the rise and fall of civilizations, publish in 1934, that can easily be, perhaps the definitive work on this subject, reveal interesting facts and evidence.

Unwin’s painstaking research in his study of 86 human civilizations, ranging from tiny south sea island principalities, to mighty Rome, found an underlying malady that ultimately led to the failure, of them all!

Invariably, Unwin found that when a society imposed limits on its ‘sexual’ practices and expression, that those sexual constraints correlate directly to its theological and religious commitment, and achieved greater social development; whereas, the most primitive societies that only had rudimentary spiritual beliefs, and did not achieve such greater social development, as did those, that adopt what Unwin dubbed “absolute monogamy” who proved to be the most vigorous, economically productive, artistically creative, scientifically innovative and geographically expansive societies on earth. (Brian Fitzpatrick, Copyright 2010 WorldNetdaily, p.38)

Absolute monogamy is a very strict moral code. Sex can only occur within one-man/one-woman marriage. Premarital sex and extramarital sex are not tolerated and divorce is prohibited.

Whether monotheistic or polytheistic, they believe devoutly in God or gods, and they order their society according to divine moral law.

Unwin’s contemporary, British historian, Arnold Toynbee, was much more explicit about the centrality of religion in history. Toynbee’s master-piece, his 12 volume “Study of History,” charted the rise and fall of 26 civilizations. In Toynbee’s view, “The course of human history consists of a series of encounters…in which each man or women or child…is challenged by God to make the free choice between doing God’s will and refusing to do it.

Why exactly does absolute monogamy, the Pauline moral code, bring vitality to a society? Absolute monogamy fosters cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margaret Mead called the “central problem of every society”

-that is, to “define appropriate roles for the men,” Monogamous civilizations require men to choose either lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, breadwinning and fatherhood. Most men choose to marry, to their good fortune, because married men tend to be healthier, happier and more productive than bachelors.

Those committed husbands create stable marriages, which offer the greatest opportunity for raising healthy, productive children who can keep a society strong and growing.

Likewise, the great economist Joseph Schumpeter attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneur’s lust for money or status, but to his love of family. To Schumpeter, the central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self-sacrificing married man who doesn’t spend his income of his pleasures, but prefers “to work and save primarily for wife and children.

And in “Family and Civilization,” Harvard historian Carle Zimmerman concludes that ” the creative periods in civilization have been based upon” the strongest form of family, which he terms the “domestic” type.

The domestic family affords a comparatively stable social structure and yet frees the individual sufficiently from family influence to perform the creative work necessary for a great civilization. (Ibid., p.39).

@ Zoe
…and you are saying all that to say that Bushie CANNOT have Islandgal….? 🙁
Cuhdear Bushie only looking for four…. The bushman ain’t in Solomon’s league……yet

Continuing from this mornings post:

Reasons for decline

If devotion to God, a Pauline moral code, and strong marriages and families are the keys to cultural success, then what causes civilizations to decline?

Zimmerman warns of “periods of family decay in which civilization is suffering internally from a lack of a basic belief in the forces which make it work.” Unwin’s explanation would be that if people lose their faith in God, they tend to lose their motivation to live by the strict moral code.

In “This Present Age,” sociologist Robert Nisbet writes, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than a spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.” Moral standards begin to erode when a society’s members chafe at the disciple imposed by absolute monogamy and begin to gratify their personal impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others.

In other words, in an amoral, hedonistic society, you can’t trust the people you need to trust, not even your spouse. Moreover, if people can make and break relationships at will, with no legal repercussions or social stigma, they are much more likely to abandon their marriages – at their children’s expenses – when the going gets tough. Husbands with roving eyes are much more likely to trade in their wives for new models.

Thus, the founder of Harvard’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin, warned that if individualistic selfishness and self-seeking are not checked, a society will lapse into a state of “sexual anarchy.” In “The American Sex Revolution,” Sorokin writes that “both man and society are degraded” as culture becomes “sexually obsessed.”

The members of such a society are habituated to look at the opposite sex as mere instruments for pleasure…to these individuals, talk of human dignity, religious and moral commandments, and rules of decency is just bosh…the society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, of motherhood and family, and even of love itself.

The predictable result? Divorce, desertion, and deviance become commonplace when “what is considered morally reprehensible is now recommended as a positive value; what we once called demoralization is now styled moral progress and a new freedom.” The parallel to the men Paul wrote about, who approve of others who commit heinous sins, is striking. Where as Sorokin described this condition as “moral schizophrenia.” Paul said nations on this condition where on the brink of divine judgment. (Brian Fitzpatrick, Copyright 2010 WorldNetDaily, p. 39)

Miller,

“Where was your Judeo-Christian god when all of this was happening?

The same place HE WAS when all the other heinous crimes against humanity was taking place, AND also, the same place WHEN HIS, Only begotten Son, the LORD JESUS CHRIST, BORE the PUNISHMENT of ALL MANKIND’S SINS, BLACK, WHITE, BROWN, YELLOW, and IN-BETWEEN!

“Sleeping or looking away and having a good laugh at the suffering of these sinful creatures for their race’s original curse? What did these people do to your vindictive god as to invite such heinous punishment?”

Children – the real victims!

The immediate victims of sexual anarchy, of course, are children.

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead writes: “After decades of so-called family diversity, the evidence from social-science research coming in: The dissolution of two-parent families, though it may benefit the adults involved, is harmful to many children, and dramatically undermines our society

What exactly happens when we take fathers out of the family picture? The National Fatherhood Initiative tells the sorry tale: “Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely tom be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers, who live with their married biological ( or adoptive) parents. (Whistleblower, November 2010, p.40).

Calm down all your religious homo’s
CoE got let off about the gay marriage
(but are breaching employment equality laws disallowing woman bishops..)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

Radical ans Subversive Agenda.

On its website, the Human Rights Campaign claims to be “the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.” Their official narrative is that homosexuals are an oppressed, victimized minority group and that activists are merely working to secure civil rights and social “equality” – hence the adoption of the “=” sign as their symbol. But civil equality is only part of the agenda. Homosexual activists are also enacting a radical socio-cultural agenda that would shock Unwin and other classic historians and social researchers.

As homosexual activists have grown more sophisticated in recent years, they have stopped placing some of their more objectionable demands before the public. For example, the North American Man-Boy Love Association is no longer welcome at most “gay pride” parades, as it once was. ( Author’s note: That dosen’t necessarily mean “gay rights” activists have rejected pedophilia, or even NAMBLA. At the 2008 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Convention, I saw a man proudly sporting a NAMBLA tee-shirt at the mixer on the first evening of the event. Organizers failed to kick the man out and noboy seemed to notice that anything was wrong.)

Since their long-term activist agenda was more plainly expressed in platforms puvlished in years past, here are selected planks of homosexual rights platformds published in 1972, 1987, and 1993, focusing on positions relating to the three pillars of a healthy and growing civilization identified by Unwin: 1) strong marriages and families, 2) striong sexual restrictions, and 3) religion.

Marriage and family

* We demand legislation to prevent discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered people in the areas of family diversity, custody, adoption and foster care and that the definition of family includes the full diversity of all family structures.

* Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.

* Unrestricted, safe and affordable alternative insemination.

Homosexual activists would radically redefine the family to embrace virtually ANY combination of people imaginable, from threesomes and foursomes to families with no identifiable father and families without a mother. In effect, the word “family” would become meaningless. Are these the types of aggregations likely to produce children who can keep a society growing?

* Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools.

* And end to discrimination based on sexual orientation in all programs of
the Boy Scouts.

Activists would coerce educators into promoting a gay-friendly curriculum in schools, a goal that have already achieved in many parts of the country. they would also force private institutions like the Boy Scouts to go along with the program so children would not be taught that homosexuals behavior is wrong.

Many commentators have suggested that allowing homosexuals to marry each other would encourage them to turn away from promiscuity for which their subculture is infamous. But adapting the homosexual lifestyle to monogamous marriage is NOT what most have in mind; on the contrary, many wish to change marriage to suit the homosexual lifestyle. According to prominent homosexual columnist Michelangelo Signorile, “gays” would seek instead to make adultery acceptable by redefining the “archaic institution” of marriage.

In the end, the word “marriage” would become meaningless as well, just as other countries have already discovered that making marriage available to homosexual couples undermines the institution of marriage for all people.

“Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated,” says anthropologist Stanley Kurtz, ” and that virtually any family form, including out-of wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. Kurtz notes that after 10 years of legalized same-sex marriage in Scandinavia, “marriage parenthood has become a minority phenomenon.” He also reports that growing numbers of heterosexual couples are having families without bothering to tie the knot, and thar the number of children being raised in fatherless homes is climbing quickly because the rate of breakup of unmarried couples is two to thee times the rate of divorce among married couples. (Ibid., p.41)

Natural Law is given to us from our Creator, Almighty God, as there can be no OUGHT* unless it is first grounded in an IS*!

People tend to think they own the earth and should govern it and one another. As a result, both the earth and its people are still traveling a deadly path caused by their dependence on self-rule.

Scientists and laypersons know that to succeed they must conform to nature’s laws of physics. So with the plethora of wrong results occurring daily, they should welcome news of a formerly unidentified natural law defining mankind’s right behavior.

Decades ago Richard W. Wetherill identified that law and called it nature’s law of right action. It requires rational, honest behavior, and people need to know that their well being and their very lives depend on adhering to it.

Ordinarily principled people tend to be admired and respected when, in fact, it is natural-law principles that deserve admiration and respect; not people acting in accord with them.

Generally speaking, people feel free to satisfy their noble or ignoble desires and ambitions until they learn that rational, honest action is the requirement of this natural law; action lacking appeal to persons seeking acclaim. But Wetherill often said that America is the one nation where nature’s law of right action could safely have been declared, discussed, and finally implemented.

Apparently irrational, dishonest behavior will continue until more people discover they are pitting their objectives against the higher power of a created natural law.

Those who do adhere to creation’s law of right action are peaceful and productive members of society. They have learned that the formula for success in human endeavors is to conform to all applicable natural laws, especially nature’s law of right action described in the several Natural-law Essays at our website: alphapub.com.

It would be good to hear George’s view on this topic. Just saying.

apparentley we bajans forget so fast an we dont seem to know what it is exactly we are messing with do not forget sodom an gommarah that could not stand so idk what makes them socialist think its gonna now woe be tid when he returns.everything that is disguisting an nasty be sure britian wud be in it ppl i know we are a sinnfull people but it does not mean we have to engage and accept this abomination into the house of YAHweh NO way HE WONT ALLOW EVEN IF U DO remember sodom and gomarah