In which classes is this "awareness" introduced and by whom? Are parents made aware of "what's in the classroom" re. this issue??

Although your comments are replete with unscientific assumptions, I think we could learn some things from you if you removed the "attack mode" from your comments. BTW: here is something else science discovered: the human race would not exist without male and female... thats why our emphasis here is on the essence/nature of marriage itself, not an individual's lifestyle. Male+female = marriage is like math 1+1=2 and logic: they were universal "givens" which were discovered by man, not created by him! Selah!

[Part 3]
As to “sticking to the issue,” We would like to encourage a continuation - and in fact- an evaluation of The Hon. Dame Anita Allen's lecture, “Law In A Changing Society” Reconstructing Marriage,” on June 14, 2016, in which she dealt very energetically with the definition of marriage according to our Bahamian Constitution, and in which one could safely say, she threw Christianity and the church "under the bus" when she said, among other things: “Bahamian society has changed. We are now a multi-cultural and multi faith society, in which many do not ascribe to Judeo Christian beliefs. And in determining the way forward it may well be necessary to give serious consideration to whether there is any longer any reason why the contours of contemporary secular marriage should continue to be shaped by Judeo Christian doctrine.” This is a remarkable declaration, to say the least! From a philosophical and religious/theological perspective, she has turned our entire history and cultural foundation on its head. All of a sudden, values are subjective, not absolute, and are dependent upon a changing and “progressing” society! Wow! In my humble opinion, she has in a very intellectual and sophisticated way, introduced and substituted what is now being called, "The New Civic Religion," a “progressive” philosophy that is stoked by based upon secular humanism. And it is being done “from the top down,” which makes it very difficult to track and “keep an eye on” – until it hits you in face!

I did not have the privilege of attending the prestigious event in which she gave her speech, but I secured a copy of it and read it with much enthusiasm, surprise, amazement and satisfaction, that at least she dealt with this important issue head on. She very appropriately and skillfully highlighted the core of this same sex marriage issue: the meaning of marriage itself. THAT is the issue with which we are concerned in our letter. Not an individual's lifestyle. 

So, I join her in this hope so compassionately expressed: “It is my sincere hope, that as we discuss and determine how to reconstruct our marriage laws to meet the needs of our changing society, we faithfully adhere to our country’s motto to move: forward, upward, onward, together.”
We must not leave out the “upward [toward our God]” aspect as we do so.

Thanks for the space.

Selah!

Allan R.Lee
President 
Teleios Theological Training Inst..

[Part 2]
Second, We would appreciate her citing specifically how and where we have expressed the "vitriolic tone” she has charged us with, especially since we desperately try avoiding doing that very thing when we are in dialogue on this issue. Also, she, as well as most of those who responded to your article on your website, have inappropriately broadened our focus on same sex marriage to include ALL those of the LGBTQ community personally. This is an inaccurate, judgmental conclusion. Our concern in the letter is with the ISSUE of same sex marriage, NOT the individual per se. That is also why we avoid name calling or judgmental accusations of individuals. Something that most of the respondents on your website unfortunately appear so eager to do, thus diverting our attention away from the issue itself.

Ms. D’Marco also. charges us with being homophobic. Again, it amazes me how such unfounded accusations are made by those who hold the contrary view to ours. Name calling and personal attacks against one's character are almost automatic. Again, I direct you to the respondents to your article on your website. How often, if at all, do you see "us" "take the low road" and retaliate with such terns as "heterophobic"  or "Christian-phobic" against those of who hold a contrary view?!

Moreover, she implies that we think we are living in a theocracy and stresses the fact that we are in fact, living in a Democracy. She is wrong in the first instance, but correct in the second. In fact, we proudly say that's exactly why we believe we have the right to express our views as much as anyone else in our democracy... and that without being "demonized" by those who disagree with our views. I believe we are still living under the rule of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" in our democratic country. Unfortunately, some of a different persuasion on this issue of same sex marriage, seem to think those “rules” or “rights” apply only to them.

In keeping with this, it should be pointed out that we are not making our "case" purely from a Biblical or even a religious perspective, but from a historical, sociological and "scientific" one as well. In other words, Historical, observable events establish the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is best for an ordered society.  That's being "scientific." We have abundant evidence to subtantiate this position, but both space and medium prohibits from presenting it here at this time. However, if you would be agreeable to publish such evidence as presented, we will gladly supply it to you.
[To be continued]

[Due to length of this response, it will be posted in three separate postings]
[Part 1]
Dear Ms. Virgil
Thank you for your fine reporting on the "Trump Letter" that hundreds of Caribbean Christian leaders have joined together in sending to the new President if the United States. 

We did so for two basic reasons: First, the execution of the former Administration's orders to its ambassadors to aggressively promote the elimination of any local laws, policies, etc. that opposes or prevents same-sex marriage ... and that the Caribbean (including the Bahamas) was a special focus for 2016-17... to help bring about this UN driven global agenda, is extremely offensive to us and borders on infringing upon our sovereignty as a democratic country. We do not believe our way of life and moral values should be forced upon us by so called "progressive” outside forces."

Second, to proactively foster the centuries long belief that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, and the basis for a strong, morally healthy society, and in fact, upon which our entire Western Society is based. 

We well understand and respect the response of Ms. D’Marco – and we say that with the utmost sincerity – however, we are extremely disappointed in the manner in which she has chosen to express it. She, unfortunately, takes on the same “tone” with she charges us. Due to the importance of the issue and the hope that perhaps a foundation can be laid for ongoing constructive dialogue, we are compelled to respond in some detail to her remarks as recorded in your fine article, and we do so in a spirit of love and genuine concern for the spiritual and sociological welfare of our people.

As mentioned, Ms. DeMarco begins by describing our letter as "vitriolic." First, if this is so, we humbly apologize on part of all signatories. That was not our intention. We can truly say, in a sincere attempt to follow our Saviour, and as good Bahamian Christian citizens, "we love you," and believe that, since He died for all people, we are all similarly "precious in his sight." It is the Bible ALONE that tells us we are ALL made in the imago Diol – “in the image of God.
[To be continued]