Rev Al Miller - the gay lobby is not asking for buggery decriminalization because of discrimination but to force homosexuality on the nation .......

So as we continue to look at the many sides in the arguments on the decriminalization or repealing the buggery law fully, restorative therapy advocate Reverend Al Miller on his weekly television ministry Word Power continued to comment on the issue. He touched on the recent Jamaica Observer headline "No To Buggery" which highlighted a round table of sorts with a new crop of politicians from both sides, the Jamaica Labour Party’s Paula Kerr-Jarrett, who will represent the party in the upcoming elections from Hanover East and Collin Virgo, the candidate in Manchester South, as well as the People’s National Party’s candidate in St Mary West, Jolyan Silvera and his colleague in St Andrew North East, John-Paul White — are all, based upon religious considerations, against the act of buggery. However, they argue that discussions should be held on the subject with the people as a whole, to determine whether or not Jamaica should continue to enforce buggery related laws.

See a previous post on this blog on that issue:

NO to Buggery ................

Last week he had said among other things:

" ...........we mentioned that issue, the homosexuality thing  continues to be in the air ……… lot of continuing comments to what the British Prime Minister said in the wanting to pressure nations like Jamaica to conform to change our laws to allow that the homosexual lifestyle should be accepted as an alternative   normative lifestyle and as he indicated that those who don’t conform they are considering cutting aid I have indicated we appreciate the aid from our international partners we need it as part of our development process but aid must never be at any cost if it is against the principles of spiritual righteousness  holiness and challenging the morality of our society then it is not a price we are prepared or can afford to pay for economic aid and let us know that if we take a principled stand that out prime minister has done I hope and pray he will continue to maintain a principled stance as the former prime minister did and their government to stand strong and resolute against that practice."

Al Miller on UK Aid & The Abnormality of Homosexuality 19.11.11 by glbtqja6

See more here from GLBTQJA on Wordpress:

Rev Al Miller on the Abnormality of Homosexuality & the invented gay marriage rights ploy

see Rev Al Miller’s previous sentiments some months ago:

Rev Al Miller says gay lobby is using the guise of tolerance to get the nation to accept the “gay lifestyle”

Today he commented:


Al Miller "....homosexuality is still a major topic as there are some in our world who continue to push for change in that area of our laws, it is not changing of our laws because of discrimination, the real issue is wanting the laws to change to make homosexuality an accepted lifestyle, it is to that that we object and I continue to state we love the homosexual and we must not abuse them we must accept them and receive them and help them where they want to change but we cannot accept the lifestyle as normative and consider it to be right, no, it is morally wrong but like so many other things are morally wrong and we get caught up in the behaviour and we must work to change the behaviour but we must never accept it as it is OK and that's what this big push is about wanting the nation to accept it as it's OK and our international partners are forcing that upon us and to that we must resist at whatever the cost .........


Cause there are the moral principles are greater to its benefit to our nation thane economic health, note this and do remember it, whenever this is moral and spiritual decline social and economic deterioration follows and whenever there is a restoration of the moral and the spiritual then the social and economic revitalization takes place, so there is a consistent relationship deterioration of our moral and spiritual values and social and economic collapse and so we must stand for principles stand for what is right stand for truth and justice as much as we stand for the moral principles of integrity of respect for one another of truth and unity all of these are critical to building a strong nation.


On the recent Observer article and round table with a young crop of politicians from both sides he commented:


So let's stand together and certainly congratulations to those young politicians that they are remaining and remembering those christian values and holding to them you are quite right both sides of the political spectrum, they stood, they were saying that they do believe that those biblical principles are correct but yet dialogue, they are open to dialogue and that's of course we must debate we must talk we must educate a society but not an education that says the lifestyle is OK, it is an understanding that when we err there are methods to deal with it and to treat each other with respect no matter what...."

The Reverend continued on the recent Live Love campaign which had self described ex gay gospel artiste Donnie McClurkin who performed at the National Heroes Park on Sunday November 20th where hospital supplies were donated to medical facilities and a concert with the gentleman in the photo above. No direct mention as we saw in the quote above of restorative therapies directly but the hints are clear based on the pronouncements.


The goodly Reverend may have recorded this episode before as the new information was revealed that the original aid withdrawal as stated by United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron has since been rescinded in a sense and now aid will be redirected to other areas away from central governments and we also realized that Jamaica may not be directly affected and may not have been so from the get go which brings in sharp focus the ethical footing we went into a debate as led by our advocates mainly JFLAG and AIDSFREEWORLD riding on the wave of the supposed and unverified aid removal threat. 

click: Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations

One may wonder though if Reverend Miller is using this issue of homosexuality and his strong opposition to repair his public image? which has taken a battering since the Dudus Coke matter earlier this yearand the subsequent missing gun trial where he, the goodly pastor was found guilty, a recent news service reported:

Gleaner link: Reverend Al Miller has been found guilty of negligence resulting in the loss or theft of his licensed firearm.

Reverend Miller, who is the pastor of Fellowship Tabernacle Church, in St Andrew, was charged in January earlier this year.
Senior Resident Magistrate Lorna Williams announced the verdict when the case resumed today in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court.

In handing down her ruling, Williams said she rejected the unsworn statement Miller gave in his defence.
Responding to the verdict, Miller said it shows flaws in the system.
Allegations are that the reverend and his daughter were on their way home when they stopped at a school in the Shortwood area, of St Andrew, to pick plums.
He reportedly left a pouch containing the firearm and several rounds of ammunition in his car, but returned to find them missing. (MORE HERE)

ENDS

Here is an older video from CVM TV's Sunrise program recorded earlier this year with Rev. Al Miller Fellowship Tabernacle (Church) and Arlene Harrison - Henry ( Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights I.J.C.H.R.) Debated about Sexual Equality. (use of this video is only for educational and discussion purposes)

Extra reading and listening:
Promoting homosexuality? No, its about freedom of choice, privacy & tolerance

and 

UK/commonwealth Aid Matter & The New Developments, no aid cuts but redirecting, ethical problems on our part - 22.11.11 by glbtqja5

See what you make of all this folks as the discussions continue for and against but let us not loose focus that the aid threat has been withdrawn and a new path selected by the UK and also bear in mind that the initial action was slated for African states.


Peace and tolerance


H

Rev Clinton Chisholm on "Consensual Sex Revisited"

Another entry from Reverend, Blogger, Talk show host and columnist Clinton Chisholm touches on homosexual sex and the public discourse surrounding consent. Although aged it was brought to my attention on the strength of an editorial in the Gleaner earlier this year when the debate had commenced in a sense on gay issues. It was also published as a letter in the same paper. The Editorial was entitled: "

End Discrimination Towards Gays Now

(Excerpt)

Entrenched homophobia

We understand why the various commissions, committees and legislators who drafted the charter failed to expressly declare people's rights to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

It has do with the receding, but still-entrenched homophobia in Jamaica that caused Mr Golding to declare, more than three years ago, that gays would not be welcome in his Cabinet. Politicians fear that any perception that they embrace or are soft on homosexuality will cost them votes and open them to discrimination and stigma.

The attitude, we insist, is cowardly, retrogressive, socially dangerous and offensive to human rights.

Serious concerns for all

To be clear, our position is neither an endorsement nor rejection of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not care. How consenting adults choose to live their lives is none of our business. There are, however, a couple of things that concern us and which we believe should be the concern of all Jamaicans.

First, while we note and commend the advances in individuals' rights contained in the charter, we are aware that the possibility of discrimination against any group is a toehold for the erosion of the rights of others, notwithstanding the cover of constitutional protection.

Moreover, the fear of stigma, discrimination and violence pushes many people into the closet. Their talents are often underutilised, to the detriment of the society and economy. There is evidence, too, of the health problems faced by gays, many of whom prefer to live without treatment for their illnesses, including HIV/AIDS, for fear of discrimination. The public-health risks are obvious.

It is nearly 50 years since the promulgation of the Constitution; waiting a few more months to get a better charter won't hurt.

Improving the charter will require that it lie in the legislature for months in accordance with the time stipulation for amending the Constitution. In the meantime, legislators should expunge the buggery law, the main bit of existing legislation that makes homosexuality illegal.

Here is the response from Reverend Chisolm let us juxtapose it to the recent comments, concerns and rhetoric by other religious leaders or fanatics however you want to label them, see the post immediately following this one that has several of those responses or 

Anti Sodomy Decriminalization/Repulsion action intensifies from the Christian Community

Consensual Sex Revisited

“To be clear, our position is neither an endorsement nor rejection of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not care. How consenting adults choose to live their lives is none of our business.” (Jamaica Gleaner editorial, April 1, 2011)

To some the above sentiment of the editorial is progressive, politically correct and defensible. To me it is dangerous and disingenuous. I say the editorial’s posture is disingenuous because it seems to reflect a neutral position about homosexuality but this veneer of neutrality is blown to pieces by the realization that the position of the editorial is not neutrality but indictable moral ambivalence/indifference about homosexuality summed up in the words “…we do not care.” How can a responsible and prestigious media organization (which influences public opinion) claim it is none of its business “how consenting adults choose to live their lives…”?

The editorial’s posture is societally dangerous in that how people live their lives sexually is critical to the society’s health concerns and even continued existence. Mathew Staver is correct when he says “It is a truism frequently forgotten by large complex societies: only societies that reproduce survive.” (Same-Sex Marriage, 2004, p.8) Ponder the societal consequence of universalizing homosexuality as the sexual norm!

Can one be really socially responsible but ambivalent about consensual homosexual sex, consensual adultery, consensual incest, consensual sadomasochistic sex given the relational implications of such acts beyond even the health costs of dealing with AIDS and other STIs? Has the editor given thought to the social cost of pregnancies deemed ‘unwanted’ by putative parents and especially the impact of absentee father figures on the lives of our young men?

Let us get it clear in our minds, consensuality even along with privacy and age-maturity does not constitute adequate moral justification for sexual behavior, without more, as the lawyers would say. If we hold the view that a certain sexual behavior is morally defensible let’s have the moral courage to be upfront and say so and not hide behind a thin veneer of neutrality. Homosexuality may indeed need to be decriminalized and the buggery law expunged but the reasons for doing so must be more convincing than simply moral ambivalence or apathy about what consenting adults do sexually.

The Dance of Difference, The New Frontier of Sexual Orientation

 

First Source

You can tell that Shirley Anderson Fletcher is going to be very honest as she explores the nature of prejudice in The Dance of Difference, The New Frontier of Sexual Orientation when she starts the book with this story:

CLICK HERE

I have been concerned about the oppression of racism and sexism for most of my adult life. However, I turned a blind eye to the oppression of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals until my fourteen-year-old son confronted me. I was forty-one years old at the time. He had overheard his dad and me laughing at a so-called 'gay joke.' He looked us in the eye and asked, "Would you really be laughing if there was someone gay in this room? Do you really think this is funny?" He looked at us long and hard before striding out of the room. I was mortified.

That was twenty-nine years ago. We made a commitment then to monitor our own prejudices and biases regarding gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. We've been intentional about building our awareness. And the reality is we still have a long way to go.

Shirley then employs a model called "Dialogue with Difference" for exploring this prejudice by presenting a transcript of a discussion about sexual orientation with a gay African American colleague, the Rev. Dr. Jamie Washington. That transcript comprises the middle section of the book, and it is revealing in many ways. This particular technique is based on the societal construct of dominance and subordination, but it turns that relationship on its head by permitting the subordinated group member in the dialogue to have the opportunity and authority to decide the focus of the discussion.

I was skeptical about this type of presentation but found myself drawn into the discussion and learning a lot about the issue and, like Shirley, my own preconceptions and prejudices.

This is the first of a series of books on prejudice by Shirley, collectively entitled The Dance of Difference. If you want a break from traditional fluffy summer beach reading, it is well worth your time.

Publication Date: April 15, 2011
It is rare for heterosexuals to acknowledge, much less write about, their own homophobia. This black grandmother who grew up in the homophobic culture of Jamaica in the 40's and 50's offers a moving look into the challenges faced daily by people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) because of the learned biases, attitudes and behavior of heterosexuals. The author, a behavioral scientist, who migrated to the United States 30 years ago, shares examples from her early life experiences as well as examples from her long career as an organizational consultant in the United States and Europe. The centerpiece of the book is a spontaneous dialogue between the author and a gay pastor about the realities of life for members of the gay community. 

This is a standout element that sets the book apart. In a particularly valuable part of the book, the author describes common scenarios of heterosexual prejudice and bias towards LGBT people that will ring familiar with many readers. The responses she recommends will be useful in building relationships between members of the gay and heterosexual communities. Throughout, the author strikes a good balance between professional reserve and personal openness. She comes across as sincere, candid and open-minded.


She effectively uses her own life experience to demonstrate that we are not born with inbred prejudice. Rather we learn our biases from the culture in which we are raised and from well-intended people in our families and communities. She emphasizes that as adults, we have the capacity to move from indifference, to compassion, to support for human rights. This book will appeal to a wide audience that includes organization consultants and managers who are concerned about diversity and inclusion, as well as to educators and parents who are preparing children for a world in which we value and respect each other regardless of our differences.

Conscious choice The question is whether people make a conscious choice to be homosexuals. After all, why would someone willingly choose a path that is fraught with hate? That view ought to be weighed against how you exist in this setting for which the rest of the world defines you. "It is already a confusing time for many persons searching to define their sexuality," Anderson-Fletcher said, adding that she hopes readers will understand her journey as a heterosexual woman, see themselves in her, see that she was also at one point indifferent to gays, but has learnt to understand them. One would conclude that her views are unorthodox for a Jamaican. 

After all, the typical Jamaican has been reared in a culture that abhors lesbians and gays. But having lived in the United States of America with real experiences of race and gender discrimination, it was just a matter of time before her life of struggle with differences would lead her to be concerned about others. Since its April publication, the book has been well received. Many experts on the subject and persons touched by it have told her how helpful it has been. The turning point began with her then 14-year-old son who heard his father tell a homophobic joke and laugh about it. He challenged his father that he bet he would not have the same reaction were the subject of the joke present. "That incident made us stop, we never did it again," Anderson-Fletcher said. Her ongoing work in the areas of racism and sexism also influenced the change in her view of homosexuals. 

"They are a subordinated group who are treated badly in society. I also did some personal workshops with my peers to re-educate myself and that was also key to my development in the subject matter," she said. Her intention for the book which chronicles real-life case stories about the sadness, trauma and enormous suffering and pain endured by some homosexuals, is that readers will realise that gays are among our sons, daughters, brothers, friends, teachers and even ministers. "It is not a book about sex, it's about one aspect of the life of gay or heterosexual lifestyle - sexuality.

More from the Gleaner HERE

See the TVJ interview HERE

also read the first chapter 

also now see the uploaded interview on TVJ's Profile with Ian Boyne aired the 20th November 2011

Go HERE

Perkins scolded for his "tolerance"

A day after the International Day of Tolerance long time talk show host, former Gleaner and Daily News (now defunct) columnist, controversial opinion figurehead, political archiver and outpsoken tolerance to homosexual activist in a sense Wilmot "Mutty" Perkins has been scolded for his long time stance on private consensual same sex activity. His position was clear and he has been consistent on the issue for decades especially during the P. J Patterson years as Prime Minister when his private life and suspected homosexual orientation was brought into question juxtaposed to his leadership qualifications, Mr. Perkins then was resolute that someone's sexual orientation is not of concern so long as they are performing on the job, he still holds that view as echoed recently to callers who challenge his position. He has also said he has homosexual friends with whom he has stimulating conversations on art, theology, anthropology and other subjects. During the Sexual Offences Bill debates as well and the Charter of Rights furor he reiterated his position with regards to tolerance, privacy and evasiveness of the old laws obstructing consent between adults.

He has also expressed repeatedly his support for same sex unions rights to be afforded to LGBT people with more emphasis on the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples from the state equally shared with gay unions as well, such as pension and death/funeral grants.

Here is the letter:

No, Mr Perkins

Dear Editor,

I must respond to a comment made on Perkins Online on October 25 by Wilmot Perkins.

In his conversation with a caller, he happened to utter the unforgivable lines that if two consenting males happen to be in the privacy of their homes engaging in their acts of buggery, he has no problem with that and that in fact it would be none of his business.

He also challenged those who put forward the idea that young boys would be open more to abuse by older men who are homosexuals, if the laws relating to homosexuality in Jamaica should be discontinued. His line of argument was that both young boys and girls are being abused in society in other ways, so in effect buggery would be just another form of abuse. He went as far as to point out that heterosexuals should be glad that they were born with their specific sex tendencies and sympathise with the unfortunate homosexuals being born the way they were.

I am totally disappointed in a man whom I grew up listening to on the radio and for whom I've had deep respect. I can tolerate his open vociferous defence of the JLP, although I think that his position on radio as a talk show host should have tempered his political outpouring so as to preserve the integrity that goes along with his type of job.

It surprises me that such an educated individual seems not to see that we are all connected at some point in our existence and that the action of one individual or two or more for that matter, will have an effect on the rest of society. There is no deviant behaviour by an individual that will not have a repercussion on the rest of society. Hence one should always be mindful of their actions, even in the privacy of their homes.

Consider two men together as partners that will leave two women without a partner for themselves. These women will either have to choose between becoming lesbians, being celibate or sharing someone else's fellow. The latter choice will mean rearing children as single mothers or destabilising somebody else's family. There will be no guarantee of the full influence or presence of a father figure within that family. God forbid those two fellows wanting children in their union. Imagine the scenario that would ensue.

So you see, Mr Perkins, it does matter what other people do when they live in a community or a society. There are only two remedies for this situation in a country like Jamaica. It's either total isolation without any interaction with the rest of society, or total elimination for those considered deviants. That is why some people don't want such people in their environment, because they are bound to have an effect on other people. After all, you catch the fish from the sea and carry it home, but that fish is in the big sea along with others.

So Mr Perkins, every action matters. Think about the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah.

Ras Roger

rastadeacon@facebook.com

ENDS

Clearly what we have here is a mad homophobe but more and more media personalities however seem to be more enlightened such as Elon Parkinson on CVM's Live @ 7, Simon Crosskill one half of the Smile Jamaica crew who was caustic back in the day towards LGBT subject matter and who seems to be in the process of making an about face, Ian Boyne from JIS, TVJ's Profile and Gleaner columnist and Religious Hardtalk has been balanced in his pronouncements on gay/lesbian issues despite his background in theology and his proclivity towards religious arguments. How quick some of us are to judge I wonder if when we turn the magnifying glass on this writer what will be unearthed? why do some persons feel they have greater authority to determine what is right and morally just for someone else?

Who are we to point fingers at each other when it's my private business that is of concern here?

Such is the nature of persons who are not one sided but can judge for themselves they get vilified by ignorant homophobes who refuse to think.

Peace and tolerance

H 

Should Jamaica repeal its buggery law to maintain British aid? .......

The Gleaner's Have Your Say Blog has posed a question (see below) on the David Cameron statement matter and the withdrawal of aid to countries who host anti gay laws. On this International Day of Tolerance this question should rest in our minds I suggest as we try to make sense of the furor after the statement by UK Prime Minister David Cameron's supposed threat to withdraw aid from commonwealth countries who have anti sodomy laws on their books. Here is the question and some answers including my response:  

Should Jamaica repeal its buggery law to maintain British aid?

Since the British prime minister, David Cameron recently stated that Britain would begin withholding aid from governments that do not reform legislation banning homosexuality; it seems that the question of whether or not Jamaica should repeal its buggery law has become an even greater source of contention.

Mr. Cameron made it clear that countries being given British aid should either “adhere to proper human rights” or face the consequences.

This has not gone down well with scores of Jamaicans who believe that this is a blatant attempt by Britain to force sovereign states to conform to a British perspective. However, others believe that it is Britain’s right to give or withhold their aid for whatever reason they deem significant.


What is your opinion? Do you think Jamaica should repeal its buggery law in order to maintain British aid? Have your say…

My answer I hope they approve and publish was:

Yes it should be repealed or at least decriminalized but with CAREFUL and INTERACTIVE unemotional discussions between all or most of the contending parties and the public, the misconceptions about male homosexual life in particular are just the tip of the iceberg that clouds the issues whilst driving homophobia that need resolving, if not the opposing sides will always be at each other without any middle ground.

Issues such as:

The CLEAR demarcation between consenting male gay/bi men versus perceived predatory behaviors towards children

The fact that most same sex pedophiles are in fact not homosexual after psychiatric evaluation but very much hetero with deep issues troubling them.

We believe homosexuality is illegal in Jamaica when it is not but in fact it is BUGGERY/ANAL sex that is which also practiced by some heterosexual couples although in the minority.

Not all same gender loving men practice anal penetration, there are some who find it unpleasureable believe it or not but these days anal sex is not as untidy as years decades gone by, some pharmacies locally have become enlightened and sell cleansing agents quite openly in some locations that assist persons who practice anal sex in cleanliness and safer sex. Please do not judge homosexuals by simply the way we have sex, there is more to us than that.

All of the above (and more but too long to list) need proper ventilating in simple language so that the ordinary man understands it then he can determine how he feels about the issues afterwards
The big stick approach however by the UK is NOT the way to go as that will only infuriate Jamaicans and we don’t like to be dictated to

Finally if we are to burrow the Irish model as is proposed by the advocacy structure then we can also include the child defilement provision so as to ease any concerns by child rights advocates and the public have have that freeing up buggery will cause increased child abuse, so as in order to protect children as well as they are of the least resistance for abusers. Homosexual acts were illegal in Ireland up until the summer of 1993 and further amendments in 2006. The Offences against the Person Act lifted the ban, and declared the age of consent to be 17, the same as that for acts between heterosexuals. I suggest we look at this example and probably tweak it to our liking.

The Irish child defilement clause is clear in the ages of consent and the punishment(s).

3.— (1) Any person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (3), be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or

(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(2) Any person who attempts to engage in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (4) be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or

(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years.

Peace and tolerance

Mr. H

Other answers of course were as expected not in support of the issue of repealing the buggery law. For example:

Go to the site and add your voice: HAVE YOUR SAY

also hear my audio commentary concerns about how we have skewed the tolerance calls, do we really have any credibility to ask the nation for such at this time?

International Day for Tolerance 16.11.11 my concerns of our state by glbtqja3

UPDATE: November 25 I added this comment:

1. GayTimesWatcher says:

   Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
   

   November 25, 2011 at 2:25 am

   New developments, well the Brits have now said aid won’t be cut but redirected and apparently Jamaica was not included but the idea was more so for African countries seeing that they have been very active such as Uganda with the anti gay bill there and Ghana with similar actions towards LGBT people, so I guess we can stop panicking ………… Andrew Mitchell a UK Minister said the policy had been wrongly reported as a threat to cut aid.

   The government has confirmed plans to redirect aid away from overseas governments who fail to recognise human rights, but has said it will still ensure aid reaches those in need.

   Some African states reacted angrily to Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell’s comments that aid would be redirected away from governments to other bodies, believing that overall aid would be cut unless anti-gay laws were repealed.

   In October, he (Mitchell) said: “Taking money away from Governments does not mean you do not support that country. You find other mechanisms for trying to help the poorest with food, education and health care as well as building up business structures.”

   Several Commonwealth governments condemned the action as an attempt to influence domestic policy and introduce gay rights against countries’ wishes.

   Mitchell made the statement to a meeting at which Peter Tatchell, the Kaleidoscope Trust, Stonewall, Justice for Gay Africans and the International HIV/AIDS Alliance were present. Mr Mitchell also said: “We have been very clear on this – where we think Governments do not have respect for human rights, it will have a big effect on the way we carry out this funding. Taking money away from Governments does not mean you do not support that country. You find other mechanisms for trying to help the poorest with food, education and health care as well as building up business structures..

   It is not about taking money away from countries but finding other mechanisms to help them. We take a very clear line. In a number of countries in Africa that discrimination against homosexuality has concerned us. In Malawi when they kicked out the British High Commissioner we looked at the whole nature of that relationship.

   We were aware there had been some expenditure by the President. We were aware there had been some lack of human rights – the intention to criminalize lesbianism – all took a part in my decision to stop funding the government centrally.”

   Source: Pink News UK and glbtqja.wordpress.com

Peace and tolerance

H

Meet Gays Halfway But ... (Gleaner Letter) ........ what!, homosexuality is learnt behaviour?

Before we read this letter I have been consistent in critiquing our advocates that we have not done a good job of rebutting the widely held perception in our intelligencia and by extension the general anti gay populace that homosexuality is learnt behaviour, as these obstacles are placed in the way of an obviously intensified campaign for the decriminalization of buggery or its full repulsion we could have averted letters like this during the "slow years' so persons opposed to the perceived negatives of homosexuality would be at a different place of knowledge in the public discourse.

Have a read of this letter where the letter writer implies that homosexuality is learnt behaviour among other anti gay points yet tries to disguise her hate through this supposed tolerance.
The writer by the way is a Justice of the Peace, and a senior member of Boulevard Baptist Church

Meet Gays Halfway But ...

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Some years ago, I had the opportunity of interviewing some 50 homosexuals, of which only about five were female. Unfortunately, most, if not all, were white-collar persons aged 25-45. This research project was part of my university study, captioned 'Profile of the Jamaican homosexual'.

My hypothesis was that homosexuality was a learned behaviour, and so I set out to prove same, which I did.

Long after I completed my study, I revisited the raw data and, interestingly, I found that a fair percentage of my sample had homosexuals in their antecedent family. I hasten to say that I am not alluding that homosexuality is hereditary. It could have been picked up from the social package within the family. Like any abnormal behaviour, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc., homosexuality falls in a group of deviant behaviours.

Be that as it may, Jamaican society, for the most part, uses the Bible as its benchmark for social behaviour, and we also set our values and standards on the three Ns: normal, natural and nice.

Additionally, and ironically, we were given the buggery law by the British, and today it is the same British who are demanding that the law be repealed. David Cameron is talking tough.

I am cognisant of human rights and I would suggest that homosexuality behind closed doors, between consenting partners of legal age, should be decriminalised, and we can let God be their judge. However, we should still criminalise the flaunting of this lifestyle in public spaces. This would ban any outdoor activities, like drag parties, etc.

By extension, homosexuals should be barred from adopting children or getting married, and these strictures could be added to a revised buggery law.

We can only meet them halfway. While powerful homosexuals have successfully removed their behaviour from contemporary abnormal psychology manuals, thus promoting themselves as normal, we cannot allow the few to tear down the many and for society to embrace their behaviour.

If we do, we may as well accept bestiality, or plainly put, man and dog.
I trust that our PM will see the logic in a revised buggery law - half in favour of homosexuals and half in favour of heterosexuals.

ELVENA WILLIAMS REITTIE
elvena@cwjamaica.com

LETTER ENDS

Continued from above

This letter writer is either confused, plainly disingenuous or just thinking we will settle for bread crumbs as it relates to this matter of decriminalization of buggery, the two mouthing or flip flopping here wreaks of a kind of piecemeal tolerance or I guess we should acquiesce to this garbage. Her stupidity is even more glaring not understanding the nuances with bisexuality and that of many double gender lovers presently involved in gay relationships had children as a product of previous heterosexual unions one would have thought she would had gleaned that from her so called study. To link same gender loving rights agitation to a graduatory move to demand rights for beastiality is plain dishonest and shows a hidden agenda here in a sick minded individual.

If she has a problem with effeminate behaviour and seeks to co-relate effeminacy with homosexuality then she is an idiot plain and simple if truth be told not all effeminate males are homosexual and not all homosexual males are effeminate, in fact effemopbohia is a major LGBT community issue as well as it is.

To suggest the decriminalization of buggery while ignoring the obvious reflection of that possibly seismic change in the aesthetic of homosexual life in this country to become more pronounced and public also is an idiotic position to take in my view. As we are living in this country we are in the middle of a metrosexual and public effeminacy revolution, also to be included in the mix are transgender individuals who are presented as their desired gender i.e male to female for purposes of this response. Literally how we dress is an expression of who we are.

I may further add to this my facebook comment where I expressed in more local parlance:

"Overall this letter is plain hatred disguised but she step on my foot right harder here when she says : 


"I am cognizant of human rights and I would suggest that homosexuality behind closed doors, between consenting partners of legal age, should be decriminalised, and we can let God be their judge. However, we should still criminalise the flaunting of this lifestyle in public spaces. This would ban any outdoor activities, like drag parties, etc." 


We need some fierce drag queens to find this letter writer, dance infront of her or subject her to a cratches mawnin party and give her a heart attack ..... bright n out a order a talk bout ban my queen dem........... no sah!!!!!!!!!

.......... can u imagine, it is a line that has been coming from certain corners of our intellegencia where if gays gets rights then other deviant rights seekers are gonna turn up clearly not knowing the differences ... this two mouthing/tolerance flip flop is so typical of some of these haters under disguise .... the other day I heard Leachim Semaj echo a similar sentiment."

The public's non acceptance of displays of outward same sex affection has been an issue for decades now based on the negative perceptions of male homosexuality which supposed challenges our devoted machismo and male egos conveniently stoked by the tabloid media and with no serious rebuttal from our advocacy structure until recently but as a nation one will naturally follow the other as in a positive change in the law will mean a change in attitude and expression of the persons the positive impact the law will have. One leading blogger commented: "What concerns me is that an editor decided that this should be letter of the day. Given the editorial that was published yesterday, is the Gleaner striving for "balance"?
Now she did a study in university. Great for her. In what discipline? What was the methodology? (That's a stupid research question by the way. Is homosexuality learnt? Yes. She went about answering a question that she already had a(n) (mis)informed opinion about)

By suggeting she is a scholar she is validating an opinion that is still very much an opinion."


Another response came from an ally in St. Vincent


"Dear Elvena,
I just read your letter published in the Gleaner and as it's a public forum I feel free to comment. You are entitled to your hypothesis but interviewing 50 people doesn't make a study where you can make any real scientific conclusions. Why not leave it to the experts who have sampled thousands? I, as a homosexual, can tell you that I believe that I was born this way. I always knew as long as I could remember that I was different and later on realized what this meant.

You are not in a position to define scientifically that homosexuality is an "abnormal behaviour" as you stated. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 1970's and I tend to get my information from credible sources, though my bias is self-serving, but at least it doesn't demonize people and support perpetuated violence to an entire group of people. You went on to suggest that accepting homosexuality is the same as accepting bestiality, "If we do, we may as well accept bestiality, or plainly put, man and dog.". That's just plain stupid, for want of a better word. As a University graduate you should know better. At least you didn't mention the school you went to, which I presume would be embarrassed that you are an reflection of the quality of their education. I hope it's not UWI.

You went on to write, "We can only meet them halfway". You are not even on the bridge, not even close. To have a meaningful dialogue between groups with opposing views you have to at least recognise that they are both human (bestiality references don't help) and that they are cognizant and coherent ( you wrote "Like any abnormal behaviour, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc., homosexuality falls in a group of deviant behaviours"). When you get to that point, then we can have a conversation based on mutual respect, if not agreement."

S. Macleish
St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Some people are gay ELVENA WILLIAMS REITTIE get over it.

Peace and tolerance

H

Remove Antiquated,Homophobic Law (Gleaner Editorial)...................

We believe that Prime Minister Andrew Holness missed the point or deliberately obfuscated the issue.

There is not, at this time, any campaign in Jamaica for same-sex marriages or unions and for the law to be amended to accommodate these.

What reasonable people, including this newspaper, have insisted upon isgovernment leadership against the prejudice and discrimination against gays, including the repeal of the most repressive symbol of such bigotry, the law against buggery.

This issue was recently reprised by the warning by Britain's prime minister, Mr David Cameron, that his government might cut off budgetary aid to countries that do not uphold human rights, including the oppression of gays and lesbians.

"Britain is one of the premier givers in the world," Cameron said in an interview in the margins of the recent Commonwealth summit in Australia. "We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights."

Should Mr Cameron hold his ground that British aid "should have more strings attached", Jamaica could be one of those countries affected. Britain is a substantial provider of development assistance to this country, especially in the area of security.

Although he did not muster the muscular not-in-my-Cabinet anti-gay remark of his predecessor, Mr Bruce Golding, Mr Holness catered no less to Jamaica's well-filled homophobic gallery, drawing in, for good measure, the matter of sovereignty. The gay-rights issue, he argued, was a matter that the Jamaican democracy was working through.

"We pay attention, as we are global citizens, to what people have said, including what our own people are saying," Mr Holness told this newspaper. "It is a conversation that is evolving."

We make two points on this score: gays, lesbians and all-sexuals, like heterosexual Jamaicans, are citizens of this country and should enjoy all the rights and privileges of their citizenship; and a test of a democracy is how keenly and effectively it advances and protects the rights and freedoms of the minority. With regard to homosexuals, Jamaica cannot claim to have done a good job.

PRIVATE ACTIONS, PUBLIC EFFECT

Our prime minister also made the point that "people's private actions have public effect", the relevance of which, in the context of this debate, we are not clear. It can't be that he believes that gay couples would engage in intercourse in a public square. Nor would such behaviour be expected of heterosexual couples, which, in any event, makes them liable for charges under the public decency laws.

What we advocate is to end this notion of the State as a legal voyeur monitoring the behaviour of consenting adults in their private spaces, which is a basic and logical starting point for a repeal of the buggery act and a larger move towards eliminating the discrimination and persecution of gays.

By maintaining antiquated laws that reinforce bigotry towards gays, Jamaica works against its economic interest, as can be attested to by the many blacklisted dancehall artistes whose music promotes homophobic hate. They likely represent only the tip of the proverbial iceberg of lost economic activity from a demographic which has significant disposable income, but which feels unwelcome to spend it here.

Mr Holness is new at the job and may be risk averse. But leadership is often just that - leading from the front.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email them: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
ENDS


Meanwhile 

our so called advocates are or were going in the opposite direction via:
1) JFLAG Welcomes PM Stance On Anti-Buggery Law

published by the Gleaner as well

The lobby group, Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) has welcomed comments by Prime Minister Andrew Holness for continued discussion on Jamaica’s anti-buggery legislation. Speaking with The Gleaner/ Power 106 News Centre this afternoon, J-FLAG’s executive director, Dane Lewis says Jamaicans will need to decide for themselves how to treat with the issue. Mr Lewis says his organization recognizes that a repeal of the buggery laws will not result in an immediate show of tolerance for the homosexual and transgender community. However, he says it is a beginning towards curbing discrimination.


and


AIDSFREEWORLD consultant and lawyer Maurice Tomlinson in a sense welcoming the PM’s stance ….. Liberate Gays


Are they missing something that the rest of us clearly see?


check out: 


Prime Minister Andrew Holness on the UK AID Withdrawal threat on Profile


also audio 

On The UK Aid Removal and Holness's Reponse ........ 06.11.11 by glbtqja6

Peace and tolerance


H