Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

,

The Homosexual Debate Continues to Simmer In Barbados

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

joel_palefsky
HPV PREVENTION. Dr Joel Palefsky, an infectious disease expert from the University of San Francisco (left with Dr Mark Gilbert and Dr Natasha Press), told the gay men's health summit in Vancouver that all boys should be vaccinated against HPV. (Nathaniel Christopher photo)

The next general election is over two years away if held when constitutionally due. The health of the economy, freedom of information, integrity legislation and immigration issues we suspect will feature prominently on the next general election platform. Another issue we suspect will be on the list is one of morality, specifically homosexuality.

The members of the BU family who have been with us from our early days know the interest we have shown in homosexuality (do a search of BU using ‘homosexuality’ keyword). It is one of the pillar issues we feature from time to time even if of late it has not featured on the BU rotation with the same early frequency. Interestingly the subject of homosexuality is one which a high level of hypocrisy can be levelled in Barbados. Whether we like the Jamaican approach Prime Minister Bruce Golding has echoed the position of most Jamaicans, zero tolerance to batty men in his cabinet because he feels it does not reflect the public position. Jamaicans appear to wear the label of homophobic like a boy scout would wear a badge of honour.

In Barbados we have a long way to go regarding how as a country we want to deal with the issue of homosexuality. BU remembers very well prior to the last election listening to representatives of  the Democratic Labour Party (Dr. Byer-Suckoo) and the Barbados Labour Party (Reverend Joseph Atherley) dipsy-doodle around the homosexuality issue. In contrast Jamaicans are sending a clear message. Some Jamaican homosexuals are not being deterred and have started underground churches. The venom of Jamaicans directed towards homosexuals have forced many homosexuals in Jamaica to go underground. Stories of Jamaicans suspected of the homosexual lifestyle being publicly beaten by fellow Jamaicans are a matter of record.

The lobby by homosexuals to promote greater tolerance in our predominantly heterosexual and Christian driven societies is gathering momentum. This issue is not going away. The fact many believe homosexuality to be a deviant behaviour does not remove the fact that homosexuality has now become a civil rights mater. The reality that our societies are built on Christian values and by extension the socialization of our people will continue to build tension in the minds of the average Barbadian when confronted with the homosexual issue.

In a related matter we read with interest that  the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) among gay men, especially those already infected with HIV. When you are HIV-positive virtually everyone has HPV,” Palefsky says. And gay men who are HIV-negative are still at high risk. This information was circulated at the Fifth Men’s Gay Summit held last week. The local medical and homosexual community should note the recommendation by Dr. Palefsky who is an infectious disease expert: Palefsky believes that all boys should receive a universal HPV vaccine before they are sexually active “because there’s no way to know who is going to be gay.

Alluded to above Barbadians need to start discussing the matter of homosexuality and how we intend to make the societal changes to accept this group of people who continue to be marginalized.  It would be unfortunate for some if we wait until the next general election to do so. To discuss the matter driven by political considerations will be unfortunate.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

350 responses to “The Homosexual Debate Continues to Simmer In Barbados”

  1. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    Oh man, Dictionary really doesn’t get it, does he. The machine mentality….everyone has to be exactly the same as him – after he, not us, is created by the Creator. He, not Adam, is the protoype and he is also the standard against which everyone else must measure themselves or be found wanting. No wriggle room or any effort to look for reasons or, if found, to understand and empathise. Dictionary is our judge, arbiter and standard. Or so he would like to think.

    Suddenly, Dictionary, I feel sorry for you.

    By the way, I would be careful to put forward my own ideas and not to quote Wikipedia quite so freely. You might get into trouble. See below.

    “Actor sues Wikipedia
    Mon 07 Dec 8:08 AM

    Buzz Up!

    Ron Livingstone is suing Wikipedia after the page about him wrongly claimed he was gay.

    The encyclopedia site, which relies on users to create and update online content, is being sued by the star after his page on the site claims he is in a relationship with a man named Lee Dennison, reports TMZ.com.

    The Hollywood actor is best known for his film roles in Swingers and Office Space and TV series, Sex and the City and Band of Brothers.

    Livingston, who married Rosemarie DeWitt in November, is accusing the site of libel and invasion of privacy.

    He is seeking unspecified damages.”

    I have to wonder how many boring, and likely unread, pages of Wikipedia have been created by Dictionary. A most distressing thought.

  2. michael Avatar
    michael

    Anon
    “While his behavour is inexusable, the reasons for it are sad. His excuse was the preservation of his marriage – i.e. his family. It clearly meant a lot to him.”
    false conclusion
    Love is selfless not selfish
    Obviously you don’t understand this concept .Were you able to under stand the bible or it’s author you could not think or would not think the way you do, you are like pol pot he wanted to start the Cambodian world at year zero(1975) in your case this would mean that the world start tomorrow and homosexuality would be classified normal bestiality adultery murder stealing and the list go on, in the article you put above no where have you said that the man in that marriage said he was a christian,can you please tell what rule you are using to judge what is good and what is bad

  3. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    michael // December 7, 2009 at 10:51 AM. And here we have Barbados’ own agony aunt, Michael. The self-professed expert on love and on relationships. The lesson is – keep it VERY simple so Michael doesn’t get confused with the MANY emotions that go into love – or any other human feeling. After all, far from understanding and empathy being laudable (as Christ demonstrated and preached) they are too much for Michael to grasp and, since Michael is far more worthy and important than any of us poor sinners, we have to come down to his level, because he sure isn’t going to come up to ours, even if he had the capacity and brain, which he clearly has not.

    Instead, we will just have to subscribe to whatever platitude Michael chooses to hurl at us at any given time and to deny our Christianity, because he, Michael, is now Christ’s replacement. Of course, he may be purporting to be the Archangel himself, incarnate, of course.

    Michael opins, “Were you able to under stand the bible or it’s author you could not think or would not think the way you do….” I thank him for his instruction and clarification, for I had always thought that the Bible had more than one author, in fact MANY authors. But I must now bow to the insight of the Lord’s annointed, Michael, and I know that the “Rules” of Heaven have now changed (at Michael’s behest and instruction) and it is fresh out of things like understanding, mercy, empathy, Christianity and love -and, if Michael has his say, Heaven has no intention of restocking these items in its inventory. In light of this insight of Michael’s, I hope I live forever so that I never have to forego these items no longer stocked by Heaven, but still available here on Earth.

  4. michael Avatar
    michael

    Anon, sir/madam
    I am not as wise as you but you have not yet told us what rule you are using

  5. michael Avatar
    michael

    “we have to come down to his level, because he sure isn’t going to come up to ours, even if he had the capacity and brain, which he clearly has not.”
    To have too come up to your understanding i would have to accept that homosexuality is normal,never going to happen
    After all, far from understanding and empathy being laudable (as Christ demonstrated and preached)
    I am surprised that you quote Jesus Christ here because i thought that you want to live by man’s rules which are please your self what ever you do
    “for I had always thought that the Bible had more than one author, in fact MANY authors. But I must now bow to the insight of the Lord’s annointed,”sorry for my ignorance but i thought that God was the creator of his written word
    john1 v1
    Heaven have now changed (at Michael’s behest and instruction) and it is fresh out of things like understanding, mercy, empathy, Christianity and love
    I know that Jesus Christ died for my sins on the cross i never knew that empathise with my sins had God empathise with sin Christ would have not need to die
    i would like to draw your attention to fact that i do not need to call on others to think for me the little wisdom that God has given me i try to use it to it’s fullest
    Did you know that murders rapist thieves, and the like empathise with each other so i would not use that yard stick to judge any thing

  6. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    Michael, poor you.

  7. Alex Fergusson Avatar
    Alex Fergusson

    What the DLP is doing to the people is akin to the raw form of homsexuality, with KY or grease.

    Diesel tax increase, land tax increase, gasoline increase, cost of living increase.

    Now here is the worst news: Solar Dynamics will lay off in January, so too the Post Office, Launderies and Cave Shepherd.

    Here is when you know and economic war is brewing:

    It would appear that Simpson has pulled the plug on COW over a $2 million unpaid bill for the supply of fuel.

    Now, if COW cannot pay $2m then we are in deeper deep doo doo .

    This might actually smell good to some – I mean doo doo — you know!!!!

  8. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) Avatar
    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados)

    @ Alex Fergusson // December 7, 2009 at 2:44 PM “What the DLP is doing to the people is akin to the raw form of homsexuality, with KY or grease.” [Of course, your argument could easily have been made with equal effect by simply saying ‘rape’ (hetero-, or homo- sexual). It seems that you are talking about ‘violation’ of the person. Have I missed something?]

  9. Alex Fergusson Avatar
    Alex Fergusson

    Ok!

    Not only is the DLP raping the people of this country, but it is confiscating their wealth through high and unnecessary taxation.

    This is akin to economic and political domestic violence and force sex — the type where the aggressor gets pleasure by subjecting the victim to pain and discomfort..

  10. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) Avatar
    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados)

    @ Alex Fergusson // December 7, 2009 at 3:02 PM “…akin to economic and political domestic violence and force sex…” [I’m not going to get on your case about passionate political argument, but would just beg a little care for those who are actually subjected to domestic violence and forced sex, lest they feel that you are trivializing their plight. You could just say that ‘the government is acting in a sadistic manner…’]

  11. Alex Fergusson Avatar
    Alex Fergusson

    I agree!!! Your sound advice is noted. I am guided accordingly.

    Thank you.

  12. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @Anon

    The way to be rid of this pest Dictionary is to ignore him.

    Someone chastised me for contradicting him. The person used the “Anon” handle and I asked which of the “Anons” they were. I pointed out that someone who issues no arguments based on sound analysis but always quoting others and linking to this and that, is not knowledgeable, educated and intellectual, as that particular “Anon” wanted to convince me Dictionary was. I think he is just an old geezer with time on his hands.

  13. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) Avatar
    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados)

    @Alex Fergusson // December 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM Thanks. If only political issues could be so easily handled. I wait for the next salvos. 🙂

  14. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    @Pat. As always, right on the money.

  15. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Onlookers

    It is quite clear that the homosexualists and fellow travellers have nothing substantial to say, or they would have said it.

    Instead we find at best contemptuous dismissals, at worst attacks to the man by slander, false accusation and in a few cases — as the contrary facts are right there in front of them — outright bold-face lies.

    And now, the decided strategy is that if one cannot refute one can insult, dismiss and ignore as though that is an adequate answer to serious matters.

    Old Canon Jones would be shaking his head in General Studies class! And, old Fr Ryan of Boston and Jamaica would join him, too. Not to mention good old Prof [by now?] Wiggins laughing uproariously! (Tell him his unofficial student sends greetings; if you run into him, for me.)

    So, the take home lesson is that he homosexualist push is critically dependent on the triumph of relativism based on evolutionary materialist domination of our region’s intellectual culture.

    But, once evolutionary materialism has had to answer at the bar of comparative difficulties it cameup short. this, because it undermines the credibility of reason itself and also has no proper base for morality [it is amoral not merely immoral]. So, there is no strength left in the intellectual stronghold that lent its apparent power to the agenda.

    Let us not forget that.

    G’day

    D

    PS: On the Wikipedia strawman, it shopuld have long been clear that I am actually a critic of that encyclopedia. But, I acknowledge where it does have a use. As to the notion that a Francis-Schaeffer stimulated worldview level analysis with inputs from men like Hasker and Evans, Trueblood and Plantinga etc (as well as points from the likes of Plato) has its roots in an unacknowledged use of Wikipedia, that is laughable — or it would be if it were not so sad to see Anon flailing about insultingly to try to besmirch what he plainly cannot rebut on the merits. But, even these men are not being cited as in effect Masters speaking infallibly from a papal throne or the modern academic equivalent. The analysis above stands on comparative difficulties analysis, across factual adequacy, logical coherence and explanatory power [in light of Pierce’s Abduction concept].

  16. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dictionary

    Can you simply (try really hard) explain how my heterosexual marriage will be threatened by gay marriage. How society will be undermined if two sane, consenting adults of the same gender wish to enter into a relationship that is publicly acknowledged and subject to the same intentions to love, honour and respect in fidelity till death do they part as I did and continue to do when I got married to over twenty years ago?

    Please quote no one, no philosopher, make no reference to religious text just simply write in language my fourteen year old (and I) can reasonably understand.

    By the way, you make ad hominem attacks as well you know. I am NOT a homosexualist supporter of evolutionary materialism preaching moral relativism (borrowing your words). I don’t know what these mean anyway. What I do try is to do is to “do to others as I would wish done to me” and follow as best I can the precepts of George Washinton Carver in particular “take your share of the world and let others take theirs.”

  17. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Anonymous,

    Kindly look above, as this was already done.

    Start here and here.

    In essence, the long planned and intended homosexualisation of marriage [cf also here [simple, 10 bullet points], here [focuses on the “you’re bigoted objection], here, here, here, and here (focus on state interests) ] is a part of — and is inextricably tied to — a wider agenda of radical relativism driven by the increasing dominance of amoral, evolutionary materialistic thought in our civilisation’s intellectual culture.

    Evo mat, however, faces a major gap between the ISes that it accepts [matter, energy, chance and forces of blind, mechanical necessity], and the creation/human nature based OUGHTS that are foundational to rights.

    It is thus worth pausing to cite the words of Richard Hooker in his 1594 Ecclesiastical Polity that John Locke used at the pivotal point in his 2nd essay on civil govt, in Ch 2 Sect 5, when he sought to found the core principles of what has become modern democracy:

    . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

    No other coherent and factually well-anchored foundation for rights has ever been developed.

    The breakdown of morality through the encroachment of an amoral, evolutionary materialistic view that leads to radical relativisation of values has been known since the days of Plato [cf his remarks in The Laws Bk X as cited above] to be a precursor for the breakdown of justice/rights and the rise of political strong men posing as saviours in the face of chaos; but these would be political messiahs as a rule are in fact precisely the most extreme examples of amorality in action, starting from Alcibiades and on to far more recent cases in point.

    In the cases in the last century, over 100 millions paid with their lives for the experiments with such radically secularist and/or associated neo-pagan ideologies. (And, that does not count the ongoing abortion holocaust; which in the USA alone is totting up at about a million a year, and now approaches 50 millions since 1973.)

    In short, the first and in many ways deepest concern is the inextricably connected thrust of radical relativist, secularist evolutionary materialism and the implications of the associated undermining of the moral foundations of respect for rights.

    The specific homosexualisation prong of this thrust is first intended to hypersexualise our young; opening them up for homosexualisation through systematically seeking to confuse their sexual identity and desensitise them to all sorts of sexual behaviour from a very early age.

    So, once homosexual marriage is on the books, homosexualisty will be pushed into education as “normal” behaviour (probably on terms such as GLSEN is already doing in the US, as discussed above, here . . . warning disturbing contents, and the onward link is stomach-churningly explicit; with line drawings from some of the books in question). And, since it is “normal,” and a “right,” those who adhere to traditional views and values will be denigrated, slandered, demonised and disrespected as “bigots,” having their rights and freedom of conscience violated under false colours of law; as this case already linked above — currently ongoing in the US — shows. (The attitude by homosexualist and/or radical relativist and/or materialist advocates in the thread above should be a pointer to the sort of pattern I am here noting on.)

    Finally, the basic point on marriage is that it reflects the natural, creation-rooted complementarity of the sexes. It sets up the best known context for raising of children — one that is already under a lot of pressure in our [dying] civilisation, and especially in our region.

    By radically relativistically redefining marriage under the false colour of “rights,” the homosexualists wish to transform our civlisation into a comfort zone for their behaviour; but the effect of such redefinition once legal precedents play out is highly predictable. “Marriage” will come to mean anything the powerful in the community desire; and thus, nothing.

    That is — and as many such advocates have declared since at least the 1960’s — this will kill marriage as an institution, which is foundational to stable community.

    While individual marriages may well still thrive in the teeth of the trends thus unleashed, the cumulative effect of the above trends and precedents would be devastating to the civilisation as a whole.

    What the top tier homosexualists and evolutionary materialistic radical relativists, secularists and neo-pagans who understand this — NB: most who use the talking points and press for the agenda are simply caught up in the movement, and do not have any real depth of understanding on the matches they are playing with (cf. Plato’s parable of the cave here) — are hoping is that most of us will not take the time to think through the long term implications, will not take seriously the warnings of others that such trends are in play, and will emotively resonate with the parasitical claim to “rights.” [Remember, the evolutionary materialist frame of thought has no true foundation for rights; only for the triumph of the powerful. And, historically, the appeal to well-grounded rights is the best weapon for peaceful reformation of oppression and liberation of the oppressed.]

    But, in fact, the agenda is rooted in a worldview — evolutionary materialism — which if triumphant will bread down basic support for recognition of our rights. And, such predictably leads to chaos and tyranny as desperate people seek strong rulers to preserve order.

    That is why I have taken time to insist that worldview level issues be put on the table, so that those who are willing to think will at least understand the peril that is afoot in our region.

    I suspect the trend in view is unstoppable, given its global reach and institutional access.

    But, a remnant can at lest begin to take steps to protect itself and prepare to be an oppressed and misunderstood counter-cultural minority. [As to the roots of such misunderstanding, just look at the willful slanders above against me for simply pointing out and asking for serious discussion of unwelcome trends and issues.]

    G’day

    D

  18. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Response is not going through

  19. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Let’s try in bits:

    Anonymous,

    Kindly look above, as this was already done.

    Start here and here.

    In essence, the long planned and intended homosexualisation of marriage [cf also here [simple, 10 bullet points], here [focuses on the “you’re bigoted objection],

    [ . . . ]

  20. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    here, here, here, and here (focus on state interests) ] is a part of — and is inextricably tied to — a wider agenda of radical relativism driven by the increasing dominance of amoral, evolutionary materialistic thought in our civilisation’s intellectual culture.

    [ . . . ]

  21. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Evo mat, however, faces a major gap between the ISes that it accepts [matter, energy, chance and forces of blind, mechanical necessity], and the creation/human nature based OUGHTS that are foundational to rights.

    It is thus worth pausing to cite the words of Richard Hooker in his 1594 Ecclesiastical Polity that John Locke used at the pivotal point in his 2nd essay on civil govt, in Ch 2 Sect 5, when he sought to found the core principles of what has become modern democracy:

    . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

    No other coherent and factually well-anchored foundation for rights has ever been developed.

    The breakdown of morality through the encroachment of an amoral, evolutionary materialistic view that leads to radical relativisation of values has been known since the days of Plato [cf his remarks in The Laws Bk X as cited above] to be a precursor for the breakdown of justice/rights and the rise of political strong men posing as saviours in the face of chaos; but these would be political messiahs as a rule are in fact precisely the most extreme examples of amorality in action, starting from Alcibiades and on to far more recent cases in point.

    In the cases in the last century, over 100 millions paid with their lives for the experiments with such radically secularist and/or associated neo-pagan ideologies. (And, that does not count the ongoing abortion holocaust; which in the USA alone is totting up at about a million a year, and now approaches 50 millions since 1973.)

    In short, the first and in many ways deepest concern is the inextricably connected thrust of radical relativist, secularist evolutionary materialism and the implications of the associated undermining of the moral foundations of respect for rights.

    [ . . . ]

  22. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    The specific homosexualisation prong of this thrust is first intended to hypersexualise our young; opening them up for homosexualisation through systematically seeking to confuse their sexual identity and desensitise them to all sorts of sexual behaviour from a very early age.

    So, once homosexual marriage is on the books, homosexualisty will be pushed into education as “normal” behaviour (probably on terms such as GLSEN is already doing in the US, as discussed above, here . . . warning disturbing contents, and the onward link is stomach-churningly explicit; with line drawings from some of the books in question). And, since it is “normal,” and a “right,” those who adhere to traditional views and values will be denigrated, slandered, demonised and disrespected as “bigots,” having their rights and freedom of conscience violated under false colours of law; as this case already linked above — currently ongoing in the US — shows. (The attitude by homosexualist and/or radical relativist and/or materialist advocates in the thread above should be a pointer to the sort of pattern I am here noting on.)

    Finally, the basic point on marriage is that it reflects the natural, creation-rooted complementarity of the sexes. It sets up the best known context for raising of children — one that is already under a lot of pressure in our [dying] civilisation, and especially in our region.

    By radically relativistically redefining marriage under the false colour of “rights,” the homosexualists wish to transform our civlisation into a comfort zone for their behaviour; but the effect of such redefinition once legal precedents play out is highly predictable. “Marriage” will come to mean anything the powerful in the community desire; and thus, nothing.

    That is — and as many such advocates have declared since at least the 1960’s — this will kill marriage as an institution, which is foundational to stable community.

    While individual marriages may well still thrive in the teeth of the trends thus unleashed, the cumulative effect of the above trends and precedents would be devastating to the civilisation as a whole.

    What the top tier homosexualists and evolutionary materialistic radical relativists, secularists and neo-pagans who understand this — NB: most who use the talking points and press for the agenda are simply caught up in the movement, and do not have any real depth of understanding on the matches they are playing with (cf. Plato’s parable of the cave here) — are hoping is that most of us will not take the time to think through the long term implications, will not take seriously the warnings of others that such trends are in play, and will emotively resonate with the parasitical claim to “rights.” [Remember, the evolutionary materialist frame of thought has no true foundation for rights; only for the triumph of the powerful. And, historically, the appeal to well-grounded rights is the best weapon for peaceful reformation of oppression and liberation of the oppressed.]

    But, in fact, the agenda is rooted in a worldview — evolutionary materialism — which if triumphant will bread down basic support for recognition of our rights. And, such predictably leads to chaos and tyranny as desperate people seek strong rulers to preserve order.

    That is why I have taken time to insist that worldview level issues be put on the table, so that those who are willing to think will at least understand the peril that is afoot in our region.

    I suspect the trend in view is unstoppable, given its global reach and institutional access.

    But, a remnant can at lest begin to take steps to protect itself and prepare to be an oppressed and misunderstood counter-cultural minority. [As to the roots of such misunderstanding, just look at the willful slanders above against me for simply pointing out and asking for serious discussion of unwelcome trends and issues.]

    G’day

    D

    PS: David, sorry if I have put in a multiple post . ..

  23. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    PPS: One part is waiting moderation by explicit statement.

  24. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Footnote: this issues page will have some good FAQs.

  25. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    An article [linked above] that could help focus discussion:

    June 2004

    Marriage Under Fire: Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

    by Dr. James Dobson

    An argument in favor of homosexual marriage that you are likely to hear again and again on radio talk shows, on national television, and on the Internet, reflects a line of reasoning that you must be prepared to counter. It is embodied in these kinds of questions: Why all the fuss about gay marriage anyway? And why should it matter to you if a gay couple marries and moves into your neighborhood? Why shouldn’t our definition of family be broadened and modernized? After all, what harm could possibly be done by yielding to the demands of those who say traditional notions of family are outmoded and irrelevant?

    Columnist Steve Blow, in a recent edition of The Dallas Morning News, echoed some of these questions. His op-ed piece was titled “Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me?” and was apparently written after he had read one of my recent newsletters on the subject. Blow wrote:

    When opponents talk about the “defense of marriage,” they lose me. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family just sent out a mailer to 2.5 million homes saying: “The homosexual activists’ movement is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family.” And I say, “Huh?” How does anyone’s pledge of love and commitment turn into a fatal blow to families?

    Mr. Blow clearly believes that the only reason for not legalizing homosexual marriage is sheer bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are very compelling arguments against marriage between homosexuals that should be considered by anyone who has not yet become familiar with the issues. Unfortunately, the American people, as a whole, have not yet thought through the consequences and measured the impact of this revolutionary concept. I could list fifty or more legitimate concerns. Let me focus on only a few:

    The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.

    We’ve already seen evidence from the Scandinavian countries that de-facto homosexual marriage destroys the real Mc Coy. These two entities cannot coexist because they represent opposite ends of the universe. A book could be written on the reasons for this collision between matter and antimatter, but I will cite three of them.

    First, when the State sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage. Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience, but cannot offer the intimacy described in Genesis. Cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result. Ask the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the people from the Netherlands. That is exactly what is happening there.

    Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions. In Utah polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. In January 2004, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society” — as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? The responsibility to defend the family now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case. It took less than six months for His prediction to become a reality.

    Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against Christians who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between cousins, or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

    The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure.

    With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.

    Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in The Washington Post titled, “Abolish Marriage: Let’s Really Get the Government Out Of Our Bedrooms.” In this revealing editorial, Kinsley writes, “[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let ’em. If you and your government aren’t implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.” Otherwise, the author warns, “it’s going to get ugly.”

    Judith Levine, writing in The Village Voice, offered support for these ideas in an article titled “Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough.” She wrote, “Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

    Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, summed up the situation in a recent Weekly Standard article. He noted that if gay marriage is legalized, “marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female … the bottom of this slope is visible from where we now stand.”

    We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definitely not monogamous.

    What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

    These are just a few reasons why homosexual marriage is truly revolutionary. Legalizing it will change everything, especially for the institution of the family.

    Excerpted from Marriage Under Fire, by Dr. James Dobson, 2004

  26. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    NB: I have also sent an article that could help focus efforts; but it does not even show up with “under mod.” [ Link.]

  27. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    @Dictionary. Imagine anyone wanting to perpetuate you by giving birth to you. Everybody must now be considering sterilization or homosexuality. If anyone every wanted to know why gays exist, it is so that they cannot, even by accident, give birth to another Dictionary. I might go that way myself.

  28. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Onlookers:

    We need to understand how the Plato’s cave shadow show game works on this general subject.

    Mike Adams deconstructs a media report on a homosexual rape for porn and solicitation case involving a university health official and his 5 YO adoptive son.

    David, thanks.

    G’day

    D

    PS: Observe how Anon now plainly wishes that I were never born; i.e. a euphemism for wishing me dead. Sad, but not unexpected; as clearly some very strong emotions are involved on his part to sustain the pattern of slanders and turnabout false accusations above. Anon, it is time for you to take a serious look at your views, reasoning and attitudes. (I suggest you start with the below.)

    PPS: A fair reading of my remarks on Wikipedia above will show that I am a critic [and definitely not a contributor!], but respect the fact that for a lot of [relatively non ideological] stuff, it gets it right and can be a useful source for otherwise very hard to find items; so it is important for us to make sure what we say can at least pass the Wiki test — match it or correct it. Now, overnight, I have found an interesting little video on using Wikipedia wisely; from the Library at University of North Carolina. (Actually, I wonder what so much of the fuss is over. Bias, error and outright lies can be found in all sorts of “respectable” media and even textbooks and reference resources; especially where the subject hits close to home for powerful groups. What I used to teach students at HS and College level — slightly updated — is that arguments and knowledge claims rest on one or more of three main appeals: (i) fact and logic, (ii) authority and (iii) emotions. Emotions are the most persuasive but are no better than the underlying perceptions and judgements involved. [Yes, emotions have a cognitive element!] 99+% of practical arguments require authorities, starting with the dictionary, but no authority is any better than his/her facts and logic. And, it is only if the claimed facts materially represent the truth — as opposed to a half truth — and logic is properly applied that conclusions are well-warranted. So, we need to teach kids how to identify the appeals being made, and to dig for the claimed facts used and associated reasoning, then test the credibility and completeness of claimed facts, while testing the chain of reasoning, whether deductive, inductive or explanatory/abductive. These notes on basic critical thinking and this introductory phil toolkit — both already linked in this thread — are a good place to start from. This survey on fallacies, smokescreens and propaganda techniques would also be very helpful, and the examples are a lot closer to home for say what would go wrong in a Wikipedia article, than the typical ones I have seen out there. Anon, from the above, would benefit from these tools.)

  29. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    NB: An eyewitness — a woman raised by her homosexual father in close contact with the homosexual culture in Canada — speaks.

  30. michael Avatar
    michael

    dictionary
    I hope from your last post ,the link you posted, anonymous and all can see what we are really up against,in some ways i think the battle is already lost in the northern countries if not the war our islands and our region need to pay close attention to what is being foisted on them,in western Europe every day is the drip,drip effect of pushing the boundaries further and further

  31. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Thanks Michael

    I suspect, though that the proposed attempt to ignore and/or strawmannise and demonise and dismiss what plainly cannot be refuted will continue.

    Let us hope someone will wake up and take the matters seriously, before it is too late for our region. (I think it is already too late for Europe and North America.)

    D

  32. michael Avatar
    michael

    To the people who think all is well, to the direction we are being led to by the governments of the European countries an North America,here is an example of the persons who will go to the UN and suggest what conventions should be acceptable to or be adopted by the rest of the world http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/04/john-bercow-guide-understanding-women, these same type of persons have no problem with sexual deviations in society,I was once told by an old man that some people view of the world is like two frogs standing at the bottom of a deep well looking up and one frog say to the other what a large sky that is,and I think this is the view of some people when there are told that there is danger beyond our shores.I think there must come a time when one should lead not just follow, I am sorry that this has not been written to a standards that Anon can understand but i did not go to university

  33. Love Avatar
    Love

    Is it true that Pearson Bowen (CBC) and Mark Anthony (Lottery) are *ullers and live together ?

  34. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    in Canada:

    Here we have a case where for writing a letter to the editor that exposed and was critical of homosexual-ISM, a Canadian man was assessed a fine of Can$ 5,000 for “hate speech” — and was also issued a court gag order to silence him from speaking in public on the matter.

    It has taken FOUR YEARS of litigation to get the verdict partially reversed.

    We hardly need to say just how effectively that sort of situation has chilled those who might otherwise have wished to dissent from the now dominant media line on the subject.

    And this is in Canada, a sister Commonwealth country!

    D

  35. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Love

    Kindly, lay off the scandal-mongering gossip.

    If these two are as you describe [and I don’t even know who they are, much less care], pray for them and help them, being kind to them when you see them in the street.

    Spreading rumours is nasty and unfair.

    D

  36. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    meanwhile, in the UK . . .

  37. Alex Fergusson Avatar
    Alex Fergusson

    I know you lot want to talk about homosexuality, but what about things that are actually important and that real barbadians care about such as:

    (1) bottle gas going up again;

    (2) diesel, kerosene and petrol at their highest in 14 years,

    (3) cost of living rising out of control,

    (4) people losing their jobs, while companies closing, and above all

    (5) the DLP does not know what it is going, which is why 2010 will be worst than 2009 – with massive layoffs planned for the period: January – April?

    FACED WITH THESE SAME CONDITIONS THE BLP WOULD BE PREPARING A FEAST FOR BARBADIANS – NOT MAKING THEM SUCH SALTS.

    Barbadians must not develop “Stockholm syndrome.”

    The DLP does not know what it is doing. That is why this country is in crisis.

    The BLP can do better! Team Barbados Labour Party can return this country to prosperity.

    THE DLP HAD ANOTHER CHANCE BUT ALSO SQUANDERED THAT. IT IS NOW TIME TO GIVE BARBADOS A CHANCE!

  38. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Alex:

    Before I head out the door . . .

    I know you are concerned about pocket book issues, understandably so.

    However — and not denying their importance! — economics issues are not the only policy issues that we need to concern ourselves with, especially as this one is, in a context where the very basis for the moral foundations of liberty are possibly being undermined by a determined, civilisation level agenda.

    On the economics, too, please try to understand that B’dos’ economy is probably still very tourism dependent, whilst Guyana’s is not nearly as tourism driven.

    When times get hard, people cut long distance vacation travel [esp at these high energy prices . . . imagine US$ 70+ per barrel oil is relatively “cheap”!], and it does not come back until they feel comfortable; which is still a long way off.

    In turn that puts financial pressure on Governments in the region — last I checked about 1/4 of regional GDP and employment were based on tourism — which makes them look to cut costs.

    One of those cost areas is the subsidy on certain energy prices. (Look here at the 5-year trend on crude oil: after spiking in 08, the trough was about the turn of the year at about US$ 50/bbl, It has crept back up to $70 – 75 now.)

    I hold no brief for any govt in the region, but we should be analytical enough to understand the sticky wicket that they are batting on just now.

    So, we in the region need to move into a more diversified economy than agri and mining commodities plus tourism [and note that post Sir Allen Stanford, money laundering financial services is also under pressure, understandably so . . . ], and we need to begin to transform our energy base.

    Meanwhile, the lagged effect of decades of unsustainable development efforts and trends will dog us. For which, any govt in power will be blamed.

    So, let us get serious about transforming the economics of our region, and let us keep a weather eye out for other significant policy issues that we need to address.

    BOTH AND, not EITHER OR

    D

  39. Love Avatar
    Love

    Dictionary,

    Apologies for mashing your…corns !

    I did not realise you belong to the club also !

  40. Alex Fergusson Avatar
    Alex Fergusson

    @ Love

    FACED WITH THESE SAME CONDITIONS THE BLP WOULD BE PREPARING A FEAST FOR BARBADIANS – NOT MAKING THEM SUCH SALTS.

    It is why Barbadians must not develop “Stockholm syndrome.

    THE BLP CAN DO BETTER AND IS BETTER FOR BARBADOS.

  41. michael Avatar
    michael

    @love
    your asumptioms are unwarranted, D is absolutely right there is no need to subject individuals to abuse after all there are people like us,I have two members of my family who are involved in these practices one male one female, in the case of the male it was a way of earning money,and may i say at this juncture they booth came from family units where there fathers were not there for them,one was a dead beat dad as the Americans call it,and the other the father abused the mother,in the case of the male booth he and I use to go from tenantry to tenantry on Saturdays looking for his father to get some money to buy food when we were children ,in the female case I think what she saw meeted to here mother may have brought her to the conclusion that it was better to be a man than a woman,why I say this is because she once said to me she would not let any man treat her how her father treated her mother,she thought that men had more power than women this is very sad so please think before you make fun of these people, I still say what they do is depravity

  42. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Brief notes:

    Love:

    in response to a reminder of our duty to the reputation and souls of others, you resorted to slandering me.

    I suppose it is fitting that I should be wished dead by proponents of one side, and accused of being on that same side by an extremist on the other.

    For, the point of balance is the true opposite to all extremes.

    Alex:

    Kindly, do not fall into the trap of being a Johnnie one-note.

    D

  43. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Michael

    Thanks.

    Let’s pray for these cousins — I assume — of yours, that God will grant them the grace to find healing and repentance, thence renewal and blessed transformation.

    D

  44. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    More evidence: From Massachusetts, a tape and transcript on seminars on “safe schools” issues being used for desensitisation, propagandisation and recruitment in 2000. We need to understand this stuff, and learn how to expose and rebut it; but we must not let it get us into hate.

  45. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) Avatar
    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados)

    @Dictionary, michael, et al
    In line with sentiments such as “absolutely right there is no need to subject individuals to abuse” Barbados may soon get a chance to show if it agrees with that, given the recent reports flowing around Rihanna. She is quoted as saying “I’d love to be an assassin. Either that or a lesbian. Maybe both. Hey, a gay assassin, there’s nothing hotter than that. Megan Fox would play my girlfriend – hands down. She’s yummy. She’s hot.”

    A lot of speculation is now swirling around the meaning of her new song “Te Amo” (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8SPfrsvt94). Despite her known heterosexual relations and other comments about what she prefers in the opposite sex (big is better, etc), we will see how public tongues wag.

  46. michael Avatar
    michael

    Dennis
    I am sorry i don’t get it,what has this got to do with the debate on homosexuality
    1) hollywood and the entertainment industry always seek ways to promote it’s product or it’s people and most entertainers promote them self by making outrageous statements so to be noticed surely a nation cant base it’s destination on eye candy, what you see and like for your enjoyment can not be a rule or bench mark for the rest of society,what we are trying to do here is to bring public awareness to the homosexual activist agenda,which (D)has demonstrated by the links he has provided,what i have noticed is that the people who support the idea of please your self what ever you do (no absolute right and no absolute wrong) always bring some thing for a distraction
    ps in a few years no one will know of Megan fox or care about here and what you are seeing is makeup posses camera angles it all an image that is not a real person in other words it’s all hype

  47. BM40 Avatar
    BM40

    Are dictionary and Zoe the same person?

  48. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    BM40 // December 19, 2009 at 1:01 AM . You could argue.

  49. LemonParty Avatar
    LemonParty

    It’s saddening and depressing to see that Barbados, and most West Indies countries (especially Jamaica) can be so backwards and medieval when it comes to the victimless crime of preferring members of the same sex. After all, who cares about an ill society, a society obsessed with homosexual hate, a misogynist society and idiocracy or the crimes of rape and child abuse? Nobody, the scapegoat is an easier thing to hate and deal with.

    The worse part, is that if it weren’t for religion and the British, this debate wouldn’t be happening in the first place. After all, the only places more homophobic then the West Indies is the Middle East. Apparently, something about the British colonization of the Caribbean resulted in this absurd fear of homosexuals that doesn’t make much sense to any outsiders. Pretty much every other countries in the Americas isn’t as backwards when it comes to this issue then this place.

    The other problem is religion. It’s the only reason why this law exists in the first place, religious homosexual fear, and another example why religion and state should stay as far as possible from one another. For everyone, they justify their hatred using a book writing by desert nomads. The same book that tells you to stone woman and kill unbelievers. The biggest problem is that they’re forcing their christian values on people who don’t follow this religion. Let me make this clear. They’re not trying to promote the values of Christ, no, their forcing their own views on the world under the cover of Christianity, a christian value, that’s about the opposite of morals as you can get. They get all juvenile when it comes to thinking about penis and they know that without Christianity, they can’t have any valid ground to make it a crime, to allow the state to have the power to control what people do in privacy because they think it’s gross. Many people don’t believe in the thousands of religion that try to find ways to control a person’s life. They can live morals lives without dogma, and would be very happy to be left alone by people who want to shove it on their lives by legislation and laws . You would think, that most of these people would realize the eerie parallel between this line of logic, and the logic used to justify apartheid, discrimination, and hatred on a group of people. Many of them enjoyed using “christian values” as a justification. In the end, however, by agreeing with the idea that the state can arrest people because of a mob religion for a crime of two consenting adults having sex, then where do you draw the line? The fact that you are willing to control others people lives beyond your own based on your own presences is what fascism is all about. Why not try your hand in outlawing
    asexual people? Or the theory of evolution? It makes as much sense as this law.

    You can find homosexual sex disgusting all you want, but you should know that there isn’t anything moral about bringing violence and hate on this group, nor trying to keep an authoritarian law on Barbados. Spending money that could be spent on trying to break the real harmful things of society, murderers, lowering crime, decreasing poverty, increasing quality of life. Perhaps the youth on the island will realize the stupidity of this law and change it in the next couple of decades.

  50. Thanks, Dr_ma C K ( @ Y A H O O C) O M Avatar
    Thanks, Dr_ma C K ( @ Y A H O O C) O M

    Highly recommend!! 👍🙏🙏🇺🇸🇺🇸……………………………….

    Spell caster to win Ex back

    So happy to win my Ex back..

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading