Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

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. sad very sad Avatar
    sad very sad

    SAD VERY SAD

  2. David Avatar
    David

    Did anyone read the piece posted by Dennis Johnson. There is a consequence at individual and probably country level for not toeing the line on this issue.

    Comments anyone?

  3. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    David: Anne Hendershott provided us with a statement of fact

    [If in the past it was wealthy and powerful elites who labeled others as deviant, this perogative has now been sized by influential interest or advocacy groups.

    Women’s groups and gay rights organizations, for instance, now have the ability to silence speech by those with whom they disagree. ]

    In many countries the wealthy and powerful elites are also members of the womens and gay rights movement.

    Dennis Johnson article provides evidence that proves Anne Hendershotts Statement of Fact.

  4. Global Voices Online » Barbados, Jamaica: The Politics of Homosexuality

    […] a long way to go regarding how as a country we want to deal with the issue of homosexuality”: Barbados Underground says “it would be unfortunate for some if we wait until the next general election” to […]

  5. michael Avatar
    michael

    What are you suggesting? that we accept the European morals and norms for the 30 pieces silver (few Dollars)a society is more than that, societies has been built on the cohesion of families,not just on families of the 20th 21th century but before that and this is on a heterosexual life stile,deviants will always be with us but we can not allow them to lead our thoughts,The north Americans and western Europeans has an agenda that is not compatible with the rest of the world but they want to make it the norm,we in bim need to be aware of what they want to force on our society,we should focus on good leadership(heterosexual)every thing else is a distraction
    I know that we will still get the tourist if they know that Barbados is a welcoming place for the family

  6. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    How Did We Get Here?

    “If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of *sodomy* to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread; we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamfulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then…national weakness, for which remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth…To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men (women) who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.”

    “Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a *nation* has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much secrecy…and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and after some hundred years it will no longer be the same…powerful country it is at present.”

    -Sir John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, 1814.

    In 1983, 30 percent of Americans said that they knew someone who was homosexual. By 2000, that figure had skyrocketed to 73 percent. In 1985, only 40 percent of those polled said they were comfortable around individuals who practice homosexual behaviour. By 2000, that number had risen to 60 percent. Also, in 1985, 90 percent of Americans said they would be upset if their son or daughter announced they were homosexual. By 2000, that figure stood at just 37 percent.

    The subtle process of gradualism is deadly. Most morally persuaded people, at first, reject this deviant lifestyle outright. Then, they begin to be somewhat passive in what they formally knew to be wrong, by not speaking out against it. Then they tolerate it, then acceptance, becomes embracing, what was inherently known to be a vile, vice!

    The homosexual activists, had a long-term strategy implimented well in advance, to transform America’s perception of homosexuality, and of those who oppose homosexual behaviour.

    As Gene Edward Veith wrote about the tremendous gains made by the homosexual activist movement: “Homosexuality used to be considered a vice; now even those it makes uncomfortable now must avow – as Scinfeld episode – ‘not that there’s anything wrong with it,’ while those who think there is something wrong with it are considered to have the vice of intolerance.

    The reason is a well-thought-out strategy that was devised in part by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen and publicized in two publications; a 1987 article titled, “The Overhauling of Straight America” and a 1989 book titled “The Ball.” When one reads both of these works, one sees how radical homosexual activists have implimented the strategy laid out in these publications almost to the letter.

    The homosexual activists laid out a six-point strategy to radically change America’s perception of homosexual behaviour. Their six points were:

    1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.

    2. Potray gays as *victims*, not agressive challengers.

    3. Give homosexual protectors a ‘just’ cause.

    4. Make gays look good.

    5. Make the victimizers look bad.

    6. Solicit funds; the buck stops here (i.e., get coporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause),

    Needless to say, this deviant, subtle strategy, has worked extremely well for the homosexual activist in America.

    Here at home in B’dos, though nothing as brazen as in America, nevertheless, homosexuals have come out of the closet over the last twenty years or so, openly displaying themselves in shows, blantant homosexual ‘whores’ at night, offering themselves to those men, single and married, to fullfil their abominable lusts, for a price.

    And, a former high ranking government official, tried to push this ‘vice’ down our throats, hoping to be able to legislate this abomination into law.

    Thank God, there are still the majority of Bajans, who said NO! with a loud voice!

    It is one thing to have this practice, now obviously much more widespread than before, with many men and women, both single and married, plus teenagers in school being enticed into this vice ; BUT, for any government to want to, or even consider going the so-called lawful route, be assured, this will bring the judgment of Almighty God that’s already hanging our our heads, even faster, to the ultimate demise our of land.

    One of America’s deadliest mistakes was embracing and tolerating this wicked, evil, debased subtle agenda of the homosexual activists, and giving them, so-called ‘human rights’ on par with Husbands and Wives, men and women!

    Be warned Barbados!

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

    @Zoe, whatever your views on homosexualtity, I suggest you get a few things straightened out on sodomy. When I saw the laws (and I do not think they’ve changed in last 2 years) they did not define it as a male-male act; quite on the contrary-that is a subset and heterosexual activities that many people may see as ‘normal’ are covered too.

    You can also look at case law in the Caribbean too, and even smile at how one Jamaican MP, who opposes homosexuality very vehemently was earning his money as a lawyer defending a man for sodomizing his niece. Ernie Smith MP is a good lawyer and he got the man off.

  8. kiki Avatar
    kiki

    in the old days gay meant happy..

  9. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Barbadians need to ask themselves if they are socially liberal or conservative.

    They must find out what are the social ideological leanings of their leaders and potential leaders.

    They must recall who endorse the bashment culture.

    who spoke out against it,

    They must recall who criticise a fellow member of the political class for always being in church.

    They must recall who supports legislation that is concidered friendly to Homsexuality. Not that there is anything wrong with it. lol!

    They must recall who the person is with the idea that supporting and strengthening the traditional family unit (the building block of society) is to encourage men to take a horn.

    The signs are clear, the intent is known, you would be a fool to ignore them and endorse the person, persons and or groups that are representative of the above, which collectively you may not.

    @Zoe:
    It is possible to say that America made a mistake in embracing the intial arguments of the gay lobby, but as Anne Hendershott wrote in her book “The politics of Deviance”

    “Deviance is being rediscovered by ordinary people who have suffered the real world consquences of the academic elite’s rejection of it.”

    America is now saying no:

    Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote.

    YOU CANNOT LEGISLATIVELY FORCE ACCEPTANCE ON THIS ISSUE.

  10. Jack Bowman Avatar
    Jack Bowman

    @ Zoe

    Dear Z,

    Among members of the not-a-moron community, it is normally considered good form to quote the sources of one’s writing – rather, say, than simply stealing phrases wholesale in large blocks from wingnut websites, stitching them together, and then pretending that the finished product is one’s own work.

    Quoting Zoe: “Owen Authur, said, ‘…she has being mortally wounded….give her a brake’…” That made me laugh out loud. Thank you. I had my car serviced recently by an excellent guy, and if you need his number I can give it to you. He can give you a break on a good brake.

    Quoting Zoe: “they accuse those who disagree with their lifestyles, as being ‘intolerant’.”
    As a rampant heterosexual, Zoe, I would never accuse you of being intolerant. I can simply sit here and read your stuff and know, without accusation, that you are an idiot.

  11. Negroman Avatar
    Negroman

    Jack Bowman
    You are the English expert on this blog always being critical of the usage of the English Language by the contributors to this blog.If we are sub-literate,unintelligent,racist bigots,why come here and have a debate with persons you consider to be down right idiots.

    Jack Bowman,a person of your intellect with a great command of the English language you should be contributing more meaningful and thought provoking contributions rather than nit-pick at grammatical errors many of us bloggers make with our limited knowledge of the English Language

    Bloggers such as Dennis Jones,Chris Halsall & few others even though many of the others bloggers including Your Truly do not necessarily share the same views of those bloggers,they postings are very enlightening and I have gained great knowledge on many subject matters on this blog from Dennis Jones (Living In Barbados) & Chris Halsall.Unfortunately I cannot say the same thing about the contributions from you Jack Bowman.

    Jack Bowman if we are that dumb please make your contributions on the other blogs that cater to people of your high intellect and leave us the sub-literate,racist bigots on BU alone.Jack Bowman that is my humble plea to a scum like you.

  12. David Avatar
    David

    To support the point which Adrian et al has been making it is interesting to note the reaction by parents to a book about two male penguins. The book based on a BBC report has garnered the most ban requests.

    What can we read into this position?

    Are there lessons to be learned?

    Are parents making their opinions known through such actions which should be picked up by the media, government and other stakeholders? 

     

    Gay penguins book is most banned

     

    And Tango Makes Three is the top most controversial book

    Authors, artists and musicians are due to gather at a library in San Francisco to protest against the banning of books in schools and libraries in the US.

    The event, part of the 27th annual Banned Books Week, has been organised by the American Library Association.

    Since 2001 bans on 3,736 books and other materials have been requested.

    In recent years, And Tango Makes Three – based on a true story and centring on gay penguins in New York’s Central Park Zoo – has had the most ban requests.

    The book’s authors are Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell.

    In a statement to the BBC on Friday, Mr Richardson said: "It’s regrettable that some parents believe reading a true story about two male penguins hatching an egg will damage their children’s moral development.

    "They are entitled to express their beliefs, but not to inflict them on others."

    Reasons given by organisations and individuals for their requests to get it removed from public shelves, include "anti-ethnic, anti-family, homosexuality, religious viewpoint, and unsuited to age group".

    Other works featuring in the most-challenged books list for 2008 include Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials and Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner.

    Parents’ concern

    Pullman told Britain’s Guardian newspaper that he was glad to be on the list.

    However he added: "Of course it’s a worry when anybody takes it upon themselves to dictate what people should or should not read."

    The association said the aim of the annual awareness week, which ends on Saturday, is to remind US citizens not to take their freedom for granted.

    And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell

    His Dark Materials trilogy, by Philip Pullman

    TTYL; TTFN; L8R, G8R (series), by Lauren Myracle

    Scary Stories (series), by Alvin Schwartz

    Bless Me, Ultima, by Rudolfo Anaya

    The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky

    Gossip Girl (series), by Cecily von Ziegesar

    Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, by Sarah S. Brannen

    The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini

    Flashcards of My Life, by Charise Mericle Harper

    Among those at the San Francisco Public Library event will be authors and musicians Ben Fong-Torres, Richie Unterberger and Roy Zimmerman.

    They plan to stage a number of performances and defend controversial books.

    In 2008 the American Library Association recorded 517 ban and restriction requests. Seventy-four were successful.

    The organisation recorded that the most common reason given was that contents were too "sexually explicit".

    Other classic literature subjected to complaints include JD Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.

    The Harry Potter series by JK Rowling also feature on the list.

    Earlier this week, it was claimed that Harry Potter author JK Rowling missed out on the Presidential Medal of Freedom because some US politicians believed she "encouraged witchcraft".

  13. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    And here playing ‘devil’s advocate’ (no intent on that word, other than the traditional sense)…

    Some above criticise the European ‘ways’ etc as being a causation of alternate lifestyle.

    But, surely marriage etc is a European tradition, whereas most other nations lived in the tribal settings?

    Eunuchs etc were well known in Eastern and African societies, witnessed by none other than Cleopatra’s own Court.

    Even today in India, there are professional eunuchs, developed from young boys grabbed or sold from villages.

    This is not a sudden occurrence, this is an age old happening.

    Now to my own opinion. While yes, we guard our young against those who would turn them away from our own expected standards, some more thought must go into reasons and the underlying societal relationships on this issue, rather than mere ostracism and spewing of intolerance.

    I repeat, when one is intolerant towards any sector of society, be aware that one day, someone may be intolerant towards you.

    What is even more surprising, is that by now we all should have learnt that particular lesson, being in a position to look back at history, particularly the last 500 years, with all of its trials and tribulations for all races and creeds.

    Sadly, I can see that a true Age of Aquarius is far from reality, given the tunnel vision and bigotry that still exists on a widespread basis.

    Then too, either as a part of this or compounding this, are those who are under the misconception that their path in life is the only path.

    This is quite against the Natural Law and has no basis in reality whatsoever.

  14. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Negroman, you must understand the Jack Bowman needs us anti-spellers, and grammaticunts more than we need him. He is but a language maven. Would that it were, we all could spell and use proper grammer in our contributions; why he would wither away from a lack of purpose. lol!

  15. Jack Bowman Avatar
    Jack Bowman

    Negoman I Must apolojiz, you are write and everythink I so sorry,

    Negroman,you is a greatthinker and Africa,is, great, and everything.

    So Negroman,what I say to you isd you cool and all,that. All agree,with,all,yousay because you a real,thinker.MY apologees.

  16. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Africa is a fascinating place. Many of our preconceptions about this large and varied continent may be more European in origin than African. Check out the following:

    http://saharanvibe.blogspot.com/2007/02/wodaabe-beauty-ceremony.html

  17. Jack Bowman Avatar
    Jack Bowman

    Quoting Mr Hinds: “we all could spell and use proper grammer in our contributions; why he would wither away from a lack of purpose. lol!”

    Well, that’s not exactly true, Mr Hinds. As long as there are comically witless dullards still writing “lol” as if they were unusually tedious American children, my mission will always be ahead of me.

    If you can’t write properly, you can’t think properly. Bad news for you, clearly, but try to do your best to deal with it. Okay?

    And can I please say: “lol”. Thank you. It’s so laugh-out-loud moronic that it makes me smile. Thanks.

  18. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    @Jack Bowman, Your opinion of me is utterly useless, and void of any significance whatsoever!

    You are a ‘classic’ example of the following:

    “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your *eye* is good, your whole body will be full of *light*. But if your eye (Bowman!) is *bad* your whole body will be FULL of *DARKNESS* If therefore (Bowman!) the light that IS in you is *DARKNESS* how great IS that DARKNESS.” (Matt. 6:22) emphasis added.

    Carry on smartly, Bowman, in the pit of your own self-imposed DARKNESS!

  19. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    @Dennis Jones, The point is, that the idea of changing our present laws re sodomy, yes, which cover, as you rightly say, both the heterosexual activity, and the male-male act, was the thrust of a former government official, with the obvious intent to ‘liberalize’ those ‘sodomy’ laws, thereby subtly opening the ‘door’ for a much more homosexual/lesbian oriented society, than presently obtain under our current laws.

  20. Ruel Daniels Avatar
    Ruel Daniels

    Homosexuality is not an issue of gender. It is not an issue of social differences. It is an issue of sexual differences, plain and simple.

    What about if a person is born wih a predisposition to have sex with pubescent boys or girls. This is a social and legal taboo in our society to the same degree that same gender copulaton is a social taboo.

    Yes, what adults do in the confines of their privace is their business. In addition, the fact that a man wishes to asume the affectations of a female is not a justification for us to be intolerant of him as a person. However, where he crosses the line is when he attempts to equate the un-natural act of same gender copulation with the natural process of reproduction. You cannot by a function of choice just decide that apertures and organs that are constructed for particular natural functions must be recognized differently because of your individual erotic predisposition.

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

    @ Ruel Daniels // November 17, 2009 at 9:45 PM “You cannot by a function of choice just decide that apertures and organs that are constructed for particular natural functions must be recognized differently because of your individual erotic predisposition.” [That’s broadly what the existing sodomy law covers–I presume you’re familiar with it–and it does not distinguish who is involved: man, woman, humans with animals, too.]

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

    @ Zoe // November 17, 2009 at 7:22 PM You seem to draw lines where they do not exist. The current sodomy law is comprehensive covering same sex relations (both genders), hetero- relations, and bestial ones to (as was shown in a recent case of boys with sheep in Barbados).

    You’ve drawn a conclusion from a hypothetical change about what ‘liberalising’ the law would mean, but we have no proposal to consider.

    I have no problem with your being against homosexuality: that’s your personal choice. I just find it hard that you argue strongly or stridently from thin air.

  23. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    Ruel Daniels, your post of Nov 17, 9.45pm,

    was a finely played straight drive. Good point, well said.

    If I may, you got in place by acknowledging where intolerance could not be accepted, then you played your shot.

    This is where proper discussion without abuse can be exemplified.

    Well done.

    …………..

    On the issue of taboo. As with most laws, most taboo’s etc are usually to protect the ways of society and in some aspects, individuals themselves, developed over years of learning practically.

    Some may come across as mere superstition, but in some way, could have been seeded because of ‘elders’ keeping their people within ‘boundaries’ for one reason or another.

    This is where things become difficult, when we now have to interpret freedom of choice and tolerance, as these relate to acceptable boundaries that we place as valuable to our development and where we wish society to go.

    We are necessarily creating artifical but acceptably necessary boundaries.

    For example, in history it was in all civilisations, common for a man to take a very young wife, just reached puberty.

    We, and my opinion is ‘rightly so’, abhor this.

    Why? Because we have come to place value on women and a girl’s right to education and personal development and fulfillment.

    Probably, the discussion on this aspect of societal relationships is a matter for extensive discussion and analysis, I cannot see it being easily addressed on one blog, except by personal choices and views.

  24. michael Avatar
    michael

    cruso
    read the bible it is older than European written history

  25. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    @Dennis Jones, “You’ve drawn a conclusion from a hypothetical change about what ‘liberalising’ the law would mean, but we have no proposal to consider…I find it hard that you argue strongly or stridently from thin air.”

    When Mia Mottley commissioned the study done by Pro. Mickey Waldron, re giving prisoners ‘condoms’ and other related issues, albiet to control the spread of HIV/AIDS, which would have necessitated a change of the sodomy laws, in order to grant such ‘legal’ status to prisoners, to ‘sodomize’ each other, there was a ‘hue and cry’ across the nation, where Dr. Carol Jacobs attempted to hold town-hall meetings, hoping to get Waldons report more acceptable to the general populace, the voice of people, writing to the press, call-in radio programs, and the town-hall meetings, were so angry at this report by Waldron, which Mottley was hoping would find favor with the people, thus find its way into law; BUT, it was put on the back-burner, until a more appropriate time!

    This, is hardly arguing from thin air!

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

    @Zoe, but Ms. Mottley and her party are not the government and there is no proposal on the table now. I’m no lawyer but supplying condoms to male prisoners could co-exist with no change in the sodomy law. You recognize that the law is being broken and if caught then prisoners do more time if convicted. That seems similar to having condoms on general sale and knowing that they are bought and used by unfaithful/adulterous heterosexual couples or by under aged persons together or with adults (itself involving a stipulated crime).

  27. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Zoe good for you. The Jamaican LIB has gone from accusing you of arguing out of thing air to a clumsy conclusion on condom supply and current law.

    During the firestorm directed at Mia I never once heard anyone suggest anything similar.

    I personaly believe her opinions had little to do with the welfare of prisoners, the overcrowding that in part may have had a role to play in the burning of Glendairy, under her watch suggest otherwise.

    I believe she was more likely to be guided by her liberal views.

    This is why I maintain that Bajans need to determine if they are social conservatives or liberals and if their political representatives, leader and potential leaders are on the same page with them.

  28. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    Some further insightful facts re Overlooking the Core Problems of Structural Incompatibility as it relates to homosexual behaviour, by Dr. Robert A.J. Gagon.

    “Contrary to Peterson and Hedlund, the first and most significant problem with homosexual practice is not its typical promiscuity. Rather, it is the structurally incompatible character of merging two people who are already of the same sex. This is an erotic attraction for what one already is as a sexual being and a denial of the reality that a man and woman are the two and only complementary halves of a sexual whole. This sexual attraction is narcissistic, if one realizes that it is for the distinctive features of one’s own sex and self-deceptive if one does not realize it. Increasing the commitment to such a bond merely increases the commitment to a form of union that is contrary to nature, and, from a scriptural perspective, contrary to God’s revealed will in creation…The primary problem with homosexual behaviour is no more its typical promiscuity than is the potential for birth defects the primary problem with adult incest or jealousy the primary problem with polyamorous unions. A long-term homosexual unuion merely regularizes the deception of viewing and treating a person of the same sex as one’s appropriate sexual counterpart.”

    “Modern secular societies, to say nothing of religious ones, retain the notion that sexual relationships must meet special structural criteria; that is, the objective facets of congruity or complementarity that are gounded in nature or physical makeup, and transcend positive disposition of the heart or mind and even positive behaviors. Those include considerations of consanguinity ( i.e., no sexual relations with close blood relations), numbers (i.e., a limitation to one parter at a time), age (no sex with children), and species (no sex with animals). There is a need for multiple leves of structural correspondence between sexual parters.”

    “Biological sex (gender) has a just claim to being a foundational criterion for valid sexual unions, the basis or analogical model for others. If commited multiple-parter inions and incestuous unions are unacceptable, then commited homosexual unions should be even more problematic. For the twoness of human sexual relations, on which a prohibition of polygamy is based, is predicated on the deep structure of two sexes. Moreover, the structural requirement of complementary difference, on which a prohibition of incest is based, is more keenly disclosed in sexual differentiation than blood unrelatedness. Dissolving a two-sex prerequisite for valid sexual unions strikes at the heart of whether there should be any requirement of deep structural compatibility between prospective sexual partners that takes its cue from the material structures of creation and transcends the issue of personal affections. For at the heart of all sexual practice is the sex (gender) of the participants. Because there are two sexes and because two sexes are structurally complementary at many levels, a given individual, by virture of belonging to only one of these two sexes, interacts as only one incomplete part of a two-part sexual whole. On the crucial level of sex (gender), one’s structural complement or counterpart can only be a person of the other sex. There is no escapting the rational basis in nature for this conclusion. When one perceives union with a sexual same as an avenue for completion of the sexual self, the integrity of one’s sex is implicitly denied.”

    (Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture, A Response to Peterson and Hedlund’s ‘Heterosexism, Homosexual Health, and the Church’
    By Robert A.J Gagnon, Ph.D, Associate Professor of New Testament Pittsburg Theological Seminary, 2005.

    An extremely valid, sensible, rational perspective, based on the factual structure of man/woman, and the compatibility of such union, as intended by our Creator.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Adrian Hinds, I don’t know why you keep referring to Dennis Jones as “The Jamaican”. At least he actually lives in Barbados and no doubt has a better grasp on day to day life and opinions in Barbados than you.

  30. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @anon:

    Of course you know why. He is Jamaican.

    The Jamaican LIB did not seem aware of the reasoning with which Mia Mottley sought that particular change in law. Granted, he may not have been “living in Barbados” at the time, but neither was I, yet I knew. So much for being on the ground, and or having a better a grasp of day to day life.

    btw: what we do today in Barbados could very well have a history behind it that escapes the Jamaican LIB.

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

    @Adrian Hinds, I am very aware of the reasoning that MIGHT have been in Ms. Mottley’s mind in the past. But what it was it’s not material now. As I said, “Ms. Mottley and her party are not the government and there is no proposal on the table now”. She leads a very small opposition party. So, to me, her view on the issue and her reasoning are not that relevant. If at the next election she is the leader of a party and then we can see what her position may be on this and other issues. If her views are sufficiently disliked she wont win, so what’s the worry? The world is full of people who have ideas that we may feel are unpalatable, but if they are not in a position to implement them are we going to chase them all down?

    Obviously, being on the ground only gives a certain perspective on local situations–literally–as you surely know. But it also can obscure your objectivity.

    Now, I could equally argue that the way that Jamaicans and Jamaican society think and deal with homosexuality puts them in a position quite different to Barbadians and with views that some would say are much clearer.

  32. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Going into an election the leader of either BLP or DLP will emerge as the Prime Minister in waiting, and the potentially the LOTO in waiting.

    The PM has so much authority that he/she can be liken unto a dictator while in office. Although accountable to parliament; if his cabinet which is largely made up of existing parliamentarians he/she can have so large a cabinet that parliament cannot exercise authority over it. This was the case with the last constituted parliament under the BLP government.

    The PM gives and takes regarding appointments to ministerial positions, where there are monetary and other incentives for recipients to consider.

    The PM office and the Cabinet it controls are largely responsible for the executive functions of government and for determining what legislation comes to parliament for a vote into law. Bi partisan committees of parliament are not everyday entities in Barbados parliament.

    What would we think of a PM who did not have their stamp of authority of the cabinet they are suppose to have power and control over? Maybe I should ask what could happen.

    Therefore, you have a potential leader of government or leader of the opposition who has declared adherence to an ideology that the majority of Electors may not subscribe to, should they not pay attention to where this person now sits, and be mindful of where they are likely to be sitting given their views.

    It matters who the political leader of a political party is at all times.

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

    @Adrian Hinds, I would not dispute that your “It matters who the political leader of a political party is at all times.” is valid. But you put that up after a piece saying how powerful the PM of the day is, not about how powerful the Leader of the Opposition is. Do you forget that one party has just come from 14 years in Opposition? That’s a long time for ideas to lay fallow.

    In the existing Constitutional setting, no PM can put through a legal change single handedly, so if he or she does not have the majority of Parliament on side, the laws wont change. If the majority of Parliament go that way then we have to accept that as their expressing the people’s will. So, my thought would be that you need to check first what is the disposition of the current government, and come election time the disposition of each candidate.

  34. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Only the existing parliamentarians can choose the leader of the BLP and potential Prime Minister of Barbados.

    Currently the entire general membership of the DLP chooses their Leader and potential Prime Minister of Barbados.

    In Westminster types government which we have in Barbados, patronage is an accepted tool to gaining loyalty, from which a leader or potential leader can project power.

    Is it not easier to “gain” loyalty from eight or nine parliamentarians as oppose to several thousand general members of a party?

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

    @Adrian Hinds, the BLP can change its rules (as had the DLP).

    It is near universal that patronage gains loyalty, not unique to Westminster based systems, and not unique to politics, either. Surely, the USA, where you live, gives you enough examples of that.

  36. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    1: Mia Mottley first referred to the Sodomy laws, and homosexuality in prison in response to a question. A question that some say was planted by Owen, and to which in her defense she said she was only answering a question.

    2: Rather than let it die there. She then attempt to force the issue by way of the Mickey Walrond report.

    3: That, further intensified the Anti-Mia rhetoric, With Owen calling on Barbadians to give her a break.

    4: Probably sensing prolong if not permanent damage to her reputation, she retreated to her original position of only answering a question. Adding to this she also said that no government should ever legislate no matter what, without the consent of the majority. She also added that this issue will have to be address at some point.

    She is the political leader of a major political party in Barbados one election away from having the authority, and power to influence her social views into law.

    It is true that the concept of being first amongst your equals can check the power of a PM. It has in the past with Sandiford, and I believe we are seeing it again with the delay in legislating ITAL.

    But the power of PM in the hands of a person at the head of a party where demonstrated best practices of patronage as seen via “the politics of inclusion” are plentiful. Loyalty of fellow parliamentarians can be purchase and that has shown to be enough for them to sign off on the peronal initiatives of the leader, “in whom they are well please”.

  37. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM

    @Adrian Hinds, the BLP can change its rules (as had the DLP).
    ————————————————–
    ha ha ha Such a change is not in Mia Mottley’s interest, nor of those parliamentarians who voted for her, or the leadership council who approved of her, or of those stalwarts who never liked the current popular alternative to Mia.

    But this is what Owen Arthur said must be address. He said the BLP has to address how they pick leaders, and if the general membership do not make known their wish and do so in a forceful manner, the BLP will never turn over or share its queen and king making apparatus to a bunch of lowly BLP members. Never.

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

    @Adrian Hinds, you are postulating a desired outcome. Ms Mottley is NOT “one election away from having the authority, and power to influence her social views into law” in the same way that over 14 years the leader of the DLP was not one election away from gaining power. For those with apocalyptic notions, they may wish to fill 2012 with more drama, but it’s a stretch.

    Your points to the BLP positioning raise again the spectre that Ms. Mottley was being ‘set up’ for a fall, but so far it has not happened. Which just goes to show that in politics, many outcomes are possible, and no certainties exist.

    Done.

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

    @Adrian Hinds, whether a change of rules is in Ms. Mottley’s interest is only part of the matter. The BLP parliamentary leader is not the leader of the BLP: Mr. George Payne is Chair of the BLP Executive Committee. The BLP is also clearly not a one person party.

    If you want to speculate, do so. You could even postulate what it may take to see a break up of the party. I mention that merely because that might resonate with you in the USA as some in the Republican Party who may have presidential ambitions have recently spoken openly about how good it may be for a ‘third’ party to be formed (listen to some of Ms. Palin’s recent interviews).

  40. David Avatar
    David

    @Adrian

    This is our read of the situation. Arthur is currently keeping his options open. The move by Mottley to opening put the leadership issue to bed for now was a smart move knowing that Arthur is not ready to make the move at this time; the DLP popularity is still distubingly too high even in a recession. Be assured Arthur will test the wind down the road, the key will be when the polls show a dip in DLP popularity. Arthur obviously doesn’t fancy working very hard to regain the reigns. He does not have the zeal to do so. Interesting times ahead. Thompson would rather face Mottley for sure.

  41. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @Adrian Hinds, whether a change of rules is in Ms. Mottley’s interest is only part of the matter. The BLP parliamentary leader is not the leader of the BLP: Mr. George Payne is Chair of the BLP Executive Committee. The BLP is also clearly not a one person party.
    ————————————————

    No body pays much attention to the general sec. chair or other similar positions unless it is filled by the political leader.

    How the political leader is chosen is the issue. A political party is indeed, not a one man show. Neither should it be an eight man parliamentary team show, nor a too few leadership committee show. Were that the case, the PEP, PDC and others would have a much better change of gaining a single seat in parliament.

    The party is its entire membership and this is the missing voice in who elects the political leader of the BLP. No real legitimacy can be had or sustain from what transpired to give Mia her position.

    Mia Mottley gain the Leadership of her party the very same way that Owen did the difference being while the general membership although not having a direct say endorse it, nevertheless now they don’t and may want to have that direct say now and into the future.

    Clearly Thompson has more legitimacy in terms of numbers from his party than Mia does. Why sould Barbados Electors vote enmasse for the party whose political leader its membership are not “warmed” on?

  42. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    David your assessment is sound, but don’t you think Arthur’s current national appeal while inpart due to his 14 years at the helm, remains as strong as it is due to the economics of the day and his training as an economist?

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

    @ Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 6:31 PM
    You seem to have rationalised Ms. Mottley away as a potential political power, so why then spend time worrying about her ideas?

  44. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    what does rationalizing have to do with the reality of elective politics in our first past the post two party system?????

    worry is not a good word to use. But would you like me to stop analyzing?

    Are you part of the planning committee for the Mia show coming to the Barbadian media sometime before the next election?

    I got quite a bit of what I call mia-morabilia” collected over the years, that could be useful to her or Thompy. 🙂

  45. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    Regarding the radical ‘homosexual’ agenda, coming from North America, and seeking to infiltrate our Caribbean region, the following is taken, in part, from a very well informed Jamaican, who wrote in June 20, 2008:

    “The Homosexual Agenda and the Caribbean, and the de-Christianisers Coming from North America.”

    “Yes, Bible believing Christians have, often falsely, but sometimes with cause, been accused of being hostile and unsympathetic to those facing homosexual temptation, or caught up in related habits.”

    “Therefore, however imperfect Christians are, to be truthful and corrective, but concerned for people, whoever they are.”

    “Over the past several weeks, (ca June, 2008) several incidents, such as the BBC Hardtalk interview with PM Bruce Golding of Jamaica, that alerted us to a rising surge to ‘normalise’ homosexuality in law, policy, media, public opinion and education in the Caribbean.”

    “Around that same time, a related call came through PM Dr. Denzil Douglas of St. Kitts, in the name of helping to address HIV/AIDS. But, there is always more to such stories than meets the eye.”

    ‘The Agenda’

    “An April 3, 2008 account in the Jamaica Star, ‘Gays give Jamaica Deadline.’ tells us…one individual who has been involved with Jamaica AIDS Support for Life and the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays since 1998 and is now in Canada seeking asylum along with his partner, said, “Its not just that we are singling out Jamaica and it will be only about Jamaica, but as soon as the issue in Jamaica have been addressed, then we’ll move on to another country. We’re not only looking at Jamaica, but also the *region* the 11 other countries that have *sodomy* laws on their books.”

    “In short, the HOMOSEXUAlists have the *Caricom* region in their sights.”

    “What is being Demanded”

    “They want the Government of Jamaica to produce ‘public service announcements denouncing homophobic/transphobic violence. They are also calling for a national homophobic/transphobic *education* campaign, and the repeal of the *buggery* laws and other legislation that further stigmatize, discriminate and criminalize consensual same-sex acts.”

    “They are also calling for government policy to protect human rights and inclusion of ‘sexual’ orientation’ as a ground for non-discrimination in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

    “Additionally, they want to see a focus at the Canada-CARICOM 2008 Summit to include human rights for ‘Lesbians, Gays, bi-Sexuals, and Trans-identified people.”

    “And, if we don’t fall in line,…the groups [ Egale Canada, and Metropolitan Community Churches [a homosexualist ‘church’] promise to make a public announcement on may 17, the ‘International Day Against Homophobia’ calling for, among other things, a Canadian tourism *boycott* on Jamaica and a boycott of goods and services here…”

    “The groups are planning to make an international call for the ‘Lesbian, Gay, bi-Sexual, and transsexual community to support the boycott and suspension of Jamaica from the Commonwealth for human rights.”

    “[NB: There is no gov’t sanctioned persecution of homosexuals in Jamaica; though…sadly, there have been occasional instances of mob violence, similar to what rountinely happens with Goat thieves caught in the act. And the JFLAG activist MUST know that!]”

    “If Sodomy is decriminalized”

    “On evidence of what is now going on in the US and Canada, a demand would soon go out to legalise so-called ‘same-sex marriage,’ and to write that into the education system.”

    “Husband and wife, Mom and Dad, etc., would become forbidden words in the classrooms [as is happening right now in California].”

    “Activists would then use the ‘law’ to silence those who object as attacking legal, duly declared ‘human rights’ of homosexuals,[To refuse to rent to, print invitations for a photograph the ‘wedding’ of a same-sex ‘couple’ will also be to expose oneself to human rights law.]”

    “In particular, to teach what Leviticus 18, or Romans 1 or I Cor 6: 9-11, etc., say about homosexual conduct, would be deemed criminal ‘hate speech’ [A Pastor in Sweden was sentenced to goal for preaching such texts.]”

    ‘The Underlying Strategy’

    “As David Kirpelian of WND sums up in his “Marketing of Evil”

    “The sophiticated strategy [Marketing Professionals] Kirk and Madsen lay out for changing the way Americans think about homosexuality, boast three phases: ‘Desensitization’ ‘Jamming’ and ‘Conversion.’

    NOTICE.

    “For instance above, the Government of Jamaica has been slandered as if it were sponsoring anti-homosexual persecution.”

    “Never mind, that those making the false accusation know or should know better.”

    The salient point is, that no one in government in Jamaica, has attempted, to call for what Mottley did in B’dos, they would be *mad* to even think such an idea in Jamaica, BUT, the seriousness of the *intent* of the HOMOSEXUAList, agenda, not just in the US and Canada, is a world-wide strategy, which in very subtle ways, is already been talked about at the United Nations, and is very much a part of the ‘New World Order’ One World Government, yes, it is all there in the multiple thousands of pages, that many are not familar with, as it is tedious reading!

  46. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    The Family Under Attack

    “The storm that will break over America after but a single vote *legalizes* gay marriage will surely be a moment of decisive social reckoning. In the wake of the first legalization, the battle over gay marriage will be characterized by rapidly escalating confrontation, followed by a radical, nationwide resolution…As soon as even a single state legalizes same-sex marriage, the nation will be plunged into a furious legal, political, and cultural struggle. The bitter and ongoing polarization to even an exceedingly liberal state like Vermont is a clear foreshadowing of the conflict to come. As legal and political battles over traveling couples spread from state-to-state, the chaos will multiply and the courts, already inclined to mandate same-sex marriage, will grow increasingly receptive to arguments that the Full Faith and Credit Clause demands national gay marriage. And the even stronger arguments for nationally mandated gay marriage under the Constitution’s equal-protection clause will also find favor in the courts.”

    -Stanley Kurtz, writing in National Review. ( The Homosexual Agenda, Exposing The Principle Threat To Religious Freedom Today, p.89).

    The following quotes taken from the above source, emphatically reveal that the Homosexaulists Agenda in America and elsewhere, is to dethrone our God Ordained sanctity of Marriage, as defined historically by our creator, between one man and one woman, the very bedrock upon which any stable, rational, well-balanced society has prospered, and raised its children into meaningful, productive citizens of any country, which cannot be refuted with any soundness of of mind.

    “What Stanley Kurtz warned about happened on November 18, 2003. When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that same-sex couples have a newly discovered legal right to ‘marry,’ the court radically redefined marriage for the citizens of the Commonwealth – ignoring nearly four hundred years of state and national history and stripping marriage of its core purpose of uniting men and women as the basic unit of the family. *One vote has changed the course of history.* America’s moment of reckoning had come.” (Ibid., p.89).

    “Why is this battle so important? Because it goes to the very heart of God’s plan for marriage and the family. When anyone tinkers with that plan, the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of future generations is put at severe risk.”

    “For instance, in Europe a generation of children are growing up with no idea of what a traditional family is like. In countries such as Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark, it has been decades since many children have known what it is like to live in a traditional family with a mother and a father. More than half of the children in Europe are born to unwed mothers. In Sweden, 54 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. In Norway, the figure is 49 percent, in Denmark, 46 percent, and in Iceland, it is over 65 percent. And, in America, 26.7 percent of children born to white mothers, and 68.8 percent of children born to black mothers, are out of wedlock. Over 43 percent of all children in America will live in a single-parent home sometime in their childhood.” (Ibid., p.90).

    “Marriage and family are under attack by homosexual activists and their allies, both in America and internationally. At a conference at the University of London called ‘Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: A Conference on National European and International Law,” one of the main themes of discussion was whether marriage should exist at all. The attendees laid out strategies to circumvent each nations’s democratic process via the judicial system to force governments to sanction and accept same-sex marriage. There was also discussion about ultimately *abolishing* marriage so adults could be free to pursue any sexual relationship they want with no legal restrictions whatsoever.”

    “Part of Europe have already proceeded well down the road to the abolition of marriage. Same-sex marriage is already legal in the Netherlands, and many other European countries have some sort of formal recognition of same-sex couples. In January 2003, Belgium joined the Netherland to officially recognize same-sex marriage.”

    “In Norway, the nation’s finance minister, Per-Kristian Foss, *married* his homosexual partner via a ‘partnership,’ which means that they have ‘almost the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples’ but not the title.”

    ‘In Germany, a similar partership law was passed. The first lesbian couple to take advantage of the law, Angelika and Gudrum Pannier, dressed themselves in black tuxedos and white bow ties. They exchanged rings and ended their ceremony with a kiss. Angelika said, ‘It is a great honor to be Germany’s first lesbian couple to have a legal partership. It is very exciting. It is also very important to have my family beside us on this great step for civil and human rights…There is still a lot more to do, but this is the first step.” (Ibid., p. 91).

    “The first step is just the precusor to wholesale destruction of marriage.”

    “What has all of this to do with gay marriage? Everything. The argument over gay marriage is only incidentally and secondarily an argument over marriage,. Unless a government is sufficiently powerful and disdainful of religion to crush the objections of the local churches – and few governments are – gay marriage will turn out in practice to mean the creation of an *alternative* form of legal coupling that will be available to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Gay marriage, as the French are are vividly demonstrating, does NOT extend martial rights; its *abolishes* marriage and puts a new, flimsier institution in its place.”

    “The gay marriage argument is only the latest round in an argument over marriage and the family that began some 35 years ago. It *pits* defenders of marriage against those who condemn it as stultifying and oppressive. It *pits* the wishes of adults against the needs of *children*, the urgings of the *self* against the ‘obligations’ of *family*. As such, the argument is a much more evenly matched *battle* than a gay-straight fight would ever be. The *battle* has been lost in France and Scandinavia. It is well on the way to being lost in Britain and Canada. And it is very much in danger of being lost in the United States.” (Ibid., p.93).

    ‘Radical homosexual activists recognize that domestic-partner policies, civil unions, and so forth will eventually destroy the *institution* of male-female marriage. Chris Crain, writing in the homosexual newspaper the ‘New York Blade’, acknowledged this: ‘In the English-speaking world, the *faux* marriages have been called ‘domestic parterships.’ In france, they are called ‘Pacte civil de solidarite,’ or PACS…The effect on ‘traditional marriage’ has been dramatic. In France, where PACS first became available in 1990, some 14,000 couples signed up the first year, and almost half of them heterosexual…Back in the States, many heterosexual couples are also choosing domestic partership [DP] over marriage for many of the same reasons.”

    “Radical homosexual activists readily acknowledge that *redefinition* of marriage IS just a *tool* in their greater agenda to *reorder* society. While they will not admit it, *children* are just pawns to be used as they strive for total acceptance of their behavior. Consider the quote from Evan Wolfson, former president of the Lamba Legal Defense and Education Fund, a leading lobbying and legal action group for homosexual marriage. ‘We can win the freedom to marry….We can *sieze* the terms of the debate, tell our *diverse* stories, engage the nongay persuadable public, enlist allies, work the courts, and the legislatures in several states, and achieve a legal *breakthrough* within five years. I’m talking about not just any legal breakthrough, but an actual change in the law of at least one state, ending discrimination in civil marriage and permitting same-sex couples to lawfully wed. This just won’t be a change in the law either; it will be a change in *society*. For if we do it right, the struggle to win freedom to marry will bring much more along the way.” emphasis added. (Ibid., p.94)

    “George W. Dent Jr., writing in ‘The Journal of Law and Politics’ writes that once same-sex marriage is affirmed, then *other* forms of *marriage* will quickly be affirmed as well, such as polygamy, endogamy (the marriage of blood relatives), beastiality, and child marriage. In fact, the policy guide of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls fo the legalization of *polygamy* stating, ‘The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of *plural* marriage violate constitutional protections of *freedom* of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.”

    Hear this: “For the children, it makes no difference whether their parents are married or not. Traditional *family* values are *not* important to us anymore. They are something we do research on like a *fossil*” -Ebba Wilt-Brattstroem, Stockholm University, Professor of comparative literature.

    “Once marriage is redefined for same-sex partners, it opens the *Pandora’s* box to be redefined for any assortment of individuals. After all, if two men or two women have a right to be married, why not two men and three women, or two men, one woman, and a dog and a chimpanzee?” (Ibid., p. 94) emphasis added.

    Many in our part of the world, obviously don’t have a clue, regarding what the Homosexualist Agenda is really all about, and the inroads they have already made in a number of countries, as cited above; OR, are also part of this subtle, devious, wicked, evil agenda, to eradicate our historic, God given family *unit* of Father and Mother, which is already under severe stress from all of the other *ills* that plague us daily!

  47. kiki Avatar
    kiki

    Motherless Children
    http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/motherless-children/

  48. B.I.G DICK Avatar
    B.I.G DICK

    ac // November 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM

    @ Bonny Peppa

    I think B.G.Dick might be packing a WEENIE
    Ha ha———————————————-
    ——————————————-
    There is always a pre-occupation with size but usually many people cant handle size and often complain .
    Remember a giant size WEENIE might seem small to a giant but extremely large to a dwarf.

  49. B.I.G DICK Avatar
    B.I.G DICK

    Homosexuality is an abomination, Why would a man want to forego the pleasure of a warm moist and juicy orifice such as is found on a female to go and dabble in shit ? Tell me nuh ! Tell B.I.G DICK

  50. B.I.G DICK Avatar
    B.I.G DICK

    OK
    I have given up

    BULL all you want

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading