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.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

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. getting so much resistance
    from behind

    Catch this Sound

    http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/catch-this-sound/


  2. @B.I.G.Dick
    You ain’t saying nothing.

    The fact that you are homophobic speaks volumes about your sexual insecurety .Look at the stupid alias you are using, that alone makes me wonder
    about your true sexuality .Some how I think you are a closet gay. Maybe in time you would come ou of the closet.


  3. @ B.I.G Dick

    If I had a choice between a big dick and a small dick, I would go for the small dick. Small dick men aim to please. Big Dick men just hammer away, no finesse. They just dont know how to use their big dicks. They think a big dick makes the man a good lover, pooooo!


  4. @PAT
    whatever makes you happi————– Ha Ha——————————


  5. @Zoe
    Question? What happen to “Love thy neighbour as you love thyself”.
    Maybe the homosexual debate should tell you more about yourself and the unwillingness to be tolerant. Let God be the judge of all people .”he who is without sin cast the first stone”.


  6. @ac

    Dont waste your time on Zoe, we dont take fanaticism seriously. In fact, do what most do, scroll by.


  7. This is all so very interesting. I love how every few decades there is some moral panic or the other.

    I don’t find anything wrong at all with homosexuality, nor have I found anything which proves that it is indeed wrong. Religious arguments abound, but they are pointless, and rather ironic. Here we find christians, say, losing there minds over the “gy agenda” and lobby, when they themselves have a sinister christian agenda and lobby as well, using much the same tools and apporaches as the homosexuals are claimed to have used. Furthermore, the complaints about homosexuals being intolerant reprobates, trying to force their “immoral” behaviours on the rest of us are quite ironic as well, for here we have another set of people, religious ones, christians, say, trying to impose upon the rest of us their perspective and take on morality and nature, through lobbies and legislation and government. It is not a governments job to legislate morality.

    I have indeed read the bible cover to cover, and have found nothing in it which establishes marriage as a god ordained institution between one man and one woman.
    In fact, many of the famous characters in the bible had many wives. From the bible we see a polygynous view of marriage. Indeed marriage was a social contract, used to sell off daughters, gain social mobility…

    Besides, the bible is a poor piece of first century literature, which had no view into the future, and the moral situations handled in its stories are woefully simple, if they indeed exist at all. Hell, Shakespeare handles more complex moral situations than the bible.
    If there is indeed a god, and it is indeed the christian one, and it is indeed our judge, why fuss so much? Surely everyone will have their comeuppance on judgment day right? Then you’ll be free to live in your wonderful heaven, free of us sinners.
    Why would god be so bothered with where i stick my penis anyways, and be so moved to destroy nations because of an act? surely there are more important matters to tend to.

    From a family perspective, I would just like to say that only a third of humans are monogamous, so, there is no universal argument from the dad-mum-kids view, unless of course we bound the argument to western societies. There is nothing to say that homosexual parents are incapable of raising heterosexual children.

    @ Ruel
    “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.”

    Have you any idea of just how many species exhibit homosexual behaviour? Indeed, marriage is not found anywhere in nature, it is a human invented thing and can be changed. Human sexuality is not only related to our biological development but to our cognitive development as well. Cognitive development having split from our biological development means that we will do things contrary to our biology. Every time we use contraception we do this.
    There is nothing which explicitly says what we can or cannot do, and which ascertains a sole use for our members. That is something entirely dependent on us, were you born with an instruction manual tied to your toe?
    Consider the skin, it is the largest organ, it’s primary use is to protect the body against pathogens and excessive water loss, provide insulation and regulate temperature. However, it is also a sensing apparatus, indeed it does cover out entire exterior. The skin is the most sensual organ we have, key to sex and sexuality. Would you say that we use skin in an unnatural way when we pleasure each other? Indeed what of tanning?

    I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, religious arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.

    There is so much to respond to, I wish I had the time. Well, small steps.


  8. @Praetorious
    you are a disgusting deviant
    first of all let me say this the family is the bed rock of human civilization with out it man would cease to exist ,you and the people like you are minuscule in the plan of things,because you think you have captured Europe and north America and any where that let you degenerates feel comfortable you are now cumming after the Caribbean,another statement you have made about the bible is false and you know it,or your bible is not the same as mine,I think you have torn out some of the pages you don’t like,i would suggest that you go and do what you are good at,and don’t talk about the bible.may i point you to the true bible genesis ch 2 ver 24 and if you don’t care fore the bible i will say this man to man don’t create a child


  9. The LORD said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and curse him that curses you; and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you.” — Genesis 12:1-3, New Jewish Version.
    http://www.whosoever.org/v2i6/genesis.html


  10. @Praetorious, says:

    “I have indeed read the Bible from cover to cover, and have found *nothing* in which establishes *marriage* as a God ordained institution between one man and one woman.” emphasis added.

    Really, Mr. Praetorious! When did you read the Bible from cover to cover? When you were a Toddler!

    Let’s hear from God’s Word, the Bible, what He ordained for man and woman in His Institutional desire for them.

    “Therefore a *man* shall leave his father and mother and be *joined* to his *wife*, and they shall become *one* flesh” (Genesis 2: 24; See also Matt: 19:5; Mark 10:6-8) emphasis added.

    NB: Here in Genesis, Almighty God establishes the *union* of marriage, between one man and one woman, ‘…and they shall become one flesh” (v.24b). ‘leave’ connotes a priority on the part of the *husband*. ‘be joined’ has the idea of both passion and permanence. ‘One flesh’ carries a number of implications, including *sexual union*, child conception, spiritual and emotional intimacy, and showing each other, the same respect shown other close kin, such as one’s parents and siblings. This is enhanced in the NT where it is clear that Christian mates are also each other’s brother and sister.

    Praetorious, then goes on to say elsewhere, “Why would God be so bothered with where I stick my penis anyways.”

    The same Almighty God, our Creator who ordained the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, (Gen. 2:24) severely condemns “homosexuality” sexual desire directed toward members of one’s own sex.

    Homosexualty had been condemned in both Leviticus (18: 22; 20:13), where it is abhorrent to God, defiling, punishable by death, and in Deuteronomy (23:18), where it is forbidden to bring the hire of harlot or homosexual (“dog”) into the house of God in payment of religious vows, both being abhorrent to God.

    In the New Testament, *Homosexuals* “will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (I Cor. 6:9-10); because of idolatry God gave the heathen up “to dishonoroable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations (heterosexual) for unnatural (lesbianism), and the men likewise gave up natural (hetrosexual) relations with women, and were consumed with passion for one another (homosexuality), men committing shameful acts with men, and reciving in their own persons, the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:26-27). Here the association with idolatry, the *unnaturalness* of the practice, and the divine judgment which abandons individuals to it [an echo of Sodom?) are all significant. The Sodom story recurs in Jude 7 (“unnatural lust”) and II Peter. 2: 6-7) (“lust of defiling passion”), perpetuating the biblical tradition that homosexuals were under Divine ban.


  11. I do believe that every child, if the Almighty wills, benefits from the presence and influence of both parents, not just one.

    I cannot say however that I will follow blindly, anything else of life and living said.

    But, Praetorius has a right to speak and be heard.

    Interesting that after only one post, Praetorius has been pilloried as a ”disgusting deviant’.

    Definition of deviant ‘One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behaviour and attitudes differ from accepted social standards’.

    Therefore, in various parts of the world, many or most of us would be considered deviants, depending on where we happen to be located and from whence we came, surely?

    Do you some of you still wish to name call, rather than address issues with more substance?

    Or would some of you not mind being in another country and pilloried for your own views?

    Some tolerance IS called for.

    Dogmatism cannot lead to understanding and social development, only creates walls that cannot be moved.


  12. Merriam-Webster Online, definition of dogmatism,

    ”positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant”

    Something to ponder on.


  13. Praetorious // November 22, 2009 at 12:16 AM

    After reading your post, you strike me as being rational and level headed. I tend to agree with what you have said above. I have always cautioned people on this blog to “live and let live”. After all, they dont know what may turn up in their families tomorrow, next month or next year. There is a homosexual in every family. It is just tht some dont know.


  14. Yes it is right to live and let live,and i can agree to that,but what you are missing is that the homosexuals want to change society to make their practices seen as normal,i draw your attention to PARETORIOUS last written line where he says small steps,this is how they operate.In England in some schools children are being encouraged not say that they have a mum and dad they are to say that they have two parents,why?this is because(the fair thinkers say)if there is a child with only one parent it would feel unhappy not being able to talk about mum or dad what ever the case might be, and then the story goes well if a child only has two mums or two dads they two would be upset in the presents of a child who would be talking about mum and dad,so the ground work is being laid to make this practice normal.The fact is you do not here heterosexual people making a case for adultery as a good thing or what they do in private is for everyone.let me put it this way the mouth is made for eating & talking because i choose to blow a musical instrument with it, it does not mean that it is a natural thing to do

  15. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados Avatar
    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados

    @michael, whether there is a plot or not by some to make something seem normal, remember that we in the Caribbean live whgat see as very abnormal lives. Many of our children are born out of wedlock and do not know their fathers, or rarely their mothers. I look forward to the whole banning of flute or trumpet playing, as abominable deviant behaviours.


  16. @michael
    Weird conclusion you make between homosexuality and a flute.
    I think you are ver confused to make such a comparison.


  17. @Michael

    Is this practice in England (and I am not sure it is true) not to protect the plethora of single parent kids in that society? Those kids without fathers and those without mothers? I read two or three British papers every day and dont recall that policy you refer to. Could you please point us to the source? Thanks.


  18. @Scout
    Yes many of us got an ass beating .
    That is the reason we are against “beating” children . It is a cruel and barberic punishment that a person should have to be subjected to.
    I know of many families who have raised decent law abiding children without ever beating them.
    Having said that I also know people who were beaten as children and whose lives have turned out completely opposite people refer to them as “bums”


  19. Please ignore the above comment on the wrong page


  20. Hello All,

    Apologies for my late reply, I’ve many things to do and not as much time to reply.
    My usual method is to move sequentially through the comments posted in response to my statement, but I think I’ll leave my response to Zoe’s post for last.

    @michael

    Hello, michael.
    “you are a disgusting deviant”
    In what regard, I would like to know. This pejorative is also a universal statement, and obviously, false.

    “first of all let me say this the family is the bed rock of human civilization”
    Interesting analogy, however this is still fallacious. I think that humans are the foundation of civilisation, humans working together towards a common goal. A family is merely a unit of people and concerned primarily with its needs, cannot on its own be the foundation of a civilisation, in which there exist many different groups of people. Indeed, man can and has existed without a family.

    “you and the people like you are minuscule in the plan of things,because you think you have captured Europe and north America and any where that let you degenerates feel comfortable you are now cumming after the Caribbean”

    And what kind of person or group do I belong to? I have made no statements even hinting to such, so essentially what you have done is to make an assumption about my persona, create an image and then you proceed to attack it. Yet another logical fallacy, can you guess what it’s called?
    Where have I said that I think I “ have captured Europe and north America and any where that let you degenerates feel comfortable you are now cumming after the Caribbean”
    Clearly these are your thoughts, not mine.

    “another statement you have made about the bible is false and you know it,or your bible is not the same as mine,”
    Which statement is false? Neither myself nor anyone can know which one you mean unless you specify.

    “I think you have torn out some of the pages you don’t like,i would suggest that you go and do what you are good at,and don’t talk about the bible.may i point you to the true bible genesis ch 2 ver 24 and if you don’t care fore the bible i will say this man to man don’t create a child”

    This is interesting, what I find is that many people just pick and choose what verses in the bible they can find to support their position, ignoring other verse and indeed ignoring contradicting verses altogether. The thing is that you can find a verse in the bible to support almost any position, as such, if the text is not congruent within itself, how then can it be used to make a rational decision? Indeed, a man and a man cannot biologically create a child, but that is no barrier to them doing so. There are and have been such things as surrogate mothers.

    “Yes it is right to live and let live,and i can agree to that,but what you are missing is that the homosexuals want to change society to make their practices seen as normal,i draw your attention to PARETORIOUS last written line where he says small steps,this is how they operate.”

    Michael, come now. I said :
    There is so much to respond to, I wish I had the time. Well, small steps.
    Clearly I was referring to responding to the posts on this thread, and not about how homosexuals “operate”. This error isn’t too surprising, when one is quote mining off course.
    Also, I would have you know that I am heterosexual, so perhaps you shouldn’t lump me in with “they” ( I may be mistaken here).How do “they operate” by the way, what evidence have you?

    “In England in some schools children are being encouraged not say that they have a mum and dad they are to say that they have two parents,why?this is because(the fair thinkers say)if there is a child with only one parent it would feel unhappy not being able to talk about mum or dad what ever the case might be, and then the story goes well if a child only has two mums or two dads they two would be upset in the presents of a child who would be talking about mum and dad,so the ground work is being laid to make this practice normal.The fact is you do not here heterosexual people making a case for adultery as a good thing or what they do in private is for everyone.”

    Alright, As I was reading this the first thing that struck me was yet another logical fallacy, affirming the consequent. In the extract you present a situation, which on its own, shows only that children are being told to say they have two parents, when indeed they have two parents, regardless of their parents’ gender. In addition, there is a lovely non sequitur in there, where it is said that a child may be unhappy not being able to talk about mum or dad or whatever combination thereof. Indeed a child might not be unhappy because of a particular combination or more importantly because of their parents’ genders, as long as they are in a loving caring environment. Indeed, if one or both of the parents are abusive, the child may not be happy talking about them period.
    You then go one to mention something about “making this practice normal”, I have no clue what you mean by this, but taken as a whole, it appears that you are trying to relate this to homosexuals, albeit through a fallacy…I would like tot see this article btw.

    “let me put it this way the mouth is made for eating & talking because i choose to blow a musical instrument with it, it does not mean that it is a natural thing to do””

    Okay, just because we talk with our mouths, does not mean they are made for talking. The mouth’s features coupled with our brains enable speech. I hope you see what I’m saying here.

    Finally,
    @Zoe
    I hate “bible boxing” it’s pointless. I make this claim”Presupposition and prejudice, rather than “biblical evidence” have shaped the tradition of biblical interpretation.

    “I have indeed read the Bible from cover to cover, and have found *nothing* in which establishes *marriage* as a God ordained institution between one man and one woman.” emphasis added.
    Really, Mr. Praetorious! When did you read the Bible from cover to cover? When you were a Toddler!”
    Yes, really Zoe. There is * nothing* in the bible which says so. I’ve read it cover to cover maybe 2 years ago, definitely not when I was a toddler. It’s interesting, through all of your posts, this one included, you seem to talk down to people. Do you think your command of the Bible is superior to mine? Do you think that you are more enlightened than the rest of us?
    Also, marriage as one man and one woman is actually a modern definition.

    “Therefore a *man* shall leave his father and mother and be *joined* to his *wife*, and they shall become *one* flesh” (Genesis 2: 24; See also Matt: 19:5; Mark 10:6-8) emphasis added.
    NB: Here in Genesis, Almighty God establishes the *union* of marriage, between one man and one woman, ‘…and they shall become one flesh” (v.24b). ‘leave’ connotes a priority on the part of the *husband*. ‘be joined’ has the idea of both passion and permanence. ‘One flesh’ carries a number of implications, including *sexual union*, child conception, spiritual and emotional intimacy, and showing each other, the same respect shown other close kin, such as one’s parents and siblings. This is enhanced in the NT where it is clear that Christian mates are also each other’s brother and sister.

    Yes Zoe, I know this one. You will however observe that the verse doesn’t say the word marriage at all.
    In fact, your “NB” shows that all you can go on is your own personal interpretation of the bible, it being subject to your prejudices, biases and intelligence of course. You use the words “connotes” and “implications” The former word means to signify in addition to a primary meaning, and to imply. However, implication can be false, basic logic if p implies q, and q is false but p is true, the whole statement of p implies q IS false. Furthermore, we are looking at a metaphor, a metaphor is subjective. One can change it’s interpretation and meaning depending on many things, as I have stated above. Indeed, everything there is a metaphor, so you cannot draw a definite command from it. In the bible, as you know, when god commanded something, he tended to state it as explicitly[which still is pretty vague] as he could.
    Also, an interesting point to note is that when a man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6, this doesn’t mean that the man can’t be one flesh with another woman.  He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife etc.

    To throw some verse at you:
    In the old testament, there are numerous verses about legal, holy marriage between one man and many women:
    In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
    In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
    In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
    In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon’s son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
    In Deuteronomy 21:15 “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons….”
    In addition, there is no verse in the New testament which condemns polygamy, or even defines marriage as one man and woman.
    This truly is tiring, but I will continue!
    “Homosexualty had been condemned in both Leviticus (18: 22; 20:13), where it is abhorrent to God, defiling, punishable by death, and in Deuteronomy (23:18), where it is forbidden to bring the hire of harlot or homosexual (“dog”) into the house of God in payment of religious vows, both being abhorrent to God.”
    Yeah, and Leviticus 20:9 says”
    “For everyone that curseth his father and mother shall be surely put to death” yet we don’t kill rude children.

    Leviticus 19:19-20 says
    “ Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind, thous shalt not sow thy field with mingled seeds”
    Yet we do this always and the world hasn’t ended. Cattle are bred from different species for different traits. We know that mono-cropping depletes soil quality.

    And that lovely Leviticus 20:13-14
    “If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind…”
    Well, a man can’t have sex with a man as he would with a woman, because men don’t have vaginas. This verse would make sense though, if men and women had both vaginal anal and oral sex, in which case, a man could then have the latter w relations with another man. This verse DOES NOT condemn homosexuality, but sexual acts between men, acts, which are not specified.
    Leviticus 20:18 is interesting
    Apparently, if a man has sex with you on your period, you are both to be cut off from the people. Odd.

    What I’m saying is that you can’t pick and choose verse, and that even today we do not use bible verses to establish laws and what is right and wrong.

    I can only concede to the verses which use the word homosexual btw.

    Please, don’t bring the Sodom story, that is the worst thing you can do:

    In Gen 18:20, god wanted to destroy Sodom because
    “The cry of Sodom and Gommorah is great, and because their sin is very greivous”

    Gen 13:13
    “But the men of Sodom were wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly”
    Note, the nature of the sin is NOT KNOWN.

    Gen 19:5
    “And they called unto Lot, & said onto him, Where are the men which came in to thee..Bring them out unto us, that we may know them
    This could not be the sin Sodom was to be destroyed for, because god had already decided to do so before he sent the angels. The angles came to warn lot to flee. Moreso, the only apparent sin is “the intent to rape” rather than just homosexuality.

    I will point that the sin if Sodom is stated however, in Ezekiel 16:49
    “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor or needy”

    Jude 1:7 says it is also fornication, although fornication does not imply homosexuality.

    Again, there is so much to reply to, but I haven’t the time. Well, small steps.


  21. @ Crusoe,

    Thanks, you are quite an astute individual.

    @Pat,
    Thank-you. I try my best. It is sometimes a chore to stay calm and keep the whole of the arguments in mind. Not that I am prone to anger, moreso annoyance.


  22. Praetorius

    while not supporting the gay bashers, some of your rebuttals to Zoe fall short. To wit, whether we observe all of the commands of the Bible or not e.g. rude children, does not negate the fact that the Bible does condemn sexual activity between males. Quite contrary to your rhetorical query, God is concerned with where you stick your penis.

    I believe that we are on firmer ground in terms of logic, common sense and decency to recognise the illogic and incoherency of ALL religious texts and to proceed from there.

    See you at the next stoning to death (as instructed by the Koran) of an adulterous woman while the male co defendant is given some lashes.


  23. @Anonymous.

    Thanks for the comments. I said at the top I hat bible boxing and find it pointless, and I don’t quite have the time to write as detailed a response as I would like.

    “To wit, whether we observe all of the commands of the Bible or not e.g. rude children, does not negate the fact that the Bible does condemn sexual activity between ales.”

    Yes, I never said anything to the contrary, but my point was, that there are quite a few things god condemns and says which we do not hold to and which contemporary christians are either ignorant of or choose to ignore. I have said that religious arguments are pointless, just wanted to give Zoe another perspective.

    “God is concerned with where you stick your penis.”
    Still can’t find something which says that clearly in the bible.

    “I believe that we are on firmer ground in terms of logic, common sense and decency to recognise the illogic and incoherency of ALL religious texts and to proceed from there.”

    Agreed, and as i said in my fist post:

    I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, religious arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.

    It’s just that some people can’t see this, and I find myself trying to show there poor logic. Then there are those who seem to understand something if it’s from the bible…

    Thanks for the comments,
    Next time I will try a bit harder to be more detailed.
    Hey, the guy doesn’t always get lashes if he can offer a ram of trespass.


  24. Praetorious: You are far too logical and intelligent to be posting in here. Just ask Dennis Jones and Jack Bowman. You are dealing with simpletons and the religiously constipated.


  25. Praetorious, I am thoroughly enjoying your excellent posts. Keep going please. Most of the responses you get will be from dissenters, but that is because you are doing so well from the point of view of those of us who agree with you that I, for one, don’t have anything to add. Other than encouragement, that is.


  26. @praetorious well! well !well!
    You are so conceited,(too proud)that i cant think of where to start i will give it a shot
    1 I do not subscribe to the way in which you use the word surrogate, a woman giving birth to a child is the mother of that child ,people like you like to use words that are not thought through properly,the only person who it can truly be said of as a surrogate is JESUS CHRIST and he was GOD.he died in our place
    2 you have replaced the word man and woman by using the word( human)this is what i call slight of hands(impolite act)there are certain things that a women can do that men cant and visa versa
    3 man can and has existed with out a family,again you have tried to miss lead man as a individual and woman can and do live by them self but man as the species do need one another to exist
    4 your statement, i have indeed read bible cover to cover and have found nothing in it which establishes marriage as a God ordained institution between one man one woman .I will ask again what bible are you reading
    @ pat the information that you ask for, it was in a local paper for the east Anglia area i think it was the EAST ANGLIA TIMES i cant find the article i am not in that area i heard it on their local radio it was not in the national press
    back @ praetorious
    as i understand it the children were being told how to say things,there were not ask whether they had a patient or parents
    i do not intend to match you for eloquence obviously you went to university for my self i only attended mount tabor and schooled in the uk but i still know what is right and wrong and no one like you can manipulate me to think evil is good. I find it strange that a man that claims that he is heterosexual can find so much common ground with B*****s and put forward their case with such clarity


  27. @Praetorious, So I see you like ‘logic’ that’s good!

    You say, “Yes, Zoe, I know that one. (Gen. 2:24) You will however observe that the verse doesn’t say the word marriage at all.”

    Come now P, as an intelligent, obviously well read man, using logic, surely you can from the very Logic of implication, reasonably, rationally, and coherently, conclude, that the ‘union’ between Adam and Eve, without the specific word ‘marriage’ used in the text, qualifies this union, between one man and one woman, as a ‘marriage’ as it came to be known thereafter.

    Your argument on this flimsy basis, is simply not good enough for an intelligent person like you. It is like the JW’s insisting that because the word ‘Trinity’ is not a word used in the NT, that it is not Biblical to formulate the doctrine of the ‘trinity’ when the obvious ‘Logic’ of implication, drawn from a number of text, clearly, congruously, and coherently, identify the ‘three’ distinct ‘persons’ of the eternal Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is a ‘Trinity’ of persons, without the explicit use of the word Trinity used in the scriptural text.
    (See Matt. 3: 16-17; 28: 19; John 14: 16-17; I Cor. 12:4-6; Eph. 2:18; II Cor. 13:14; I John 5: 7-8; Rev 4-5).

    You also say, implication can be false. I agree, but, implication can also be true!

    It depends entirely upon the implied statement, and its premise. That’s why the Structure of Justification, in defending any propositional ‘truth’ claim, is coherence, as coherence is our sole criteria for truth!

    “In fact, your “NB” shows that all you can go on is your own personal interpretation of the Bible, it being subject to your own prejudices, biases and intelligence of course.”

    That premise of yours is not right, it flows from your own prejudices, biases, as well, dealing with a subject matter, that you obviously have little or no regard for, and hence your prejudices and biases against the authenticity of the Bible, as Almighty God’s divinely inspired Word, will be terribly tarnished by your contempt for its self-authenticating Word.

    Also, I do not have my own personal interpretation of God’s Word, yes, as a fallible human being, I would naturally have my own presuppositions, as we all do, however, like all disciplines, theology and bible, has its own established principles of interpretation, which are governed by sound Biblical Hermeneutics, Contextual Analysis, and Linguistic Exegesis, just like Medicine, Law, Engineering, etc, have theirs, yes, therefore when one is guided by these sound, historic, grammatico, linguistic rules and principles of correctly, ‘dividing’ His Word, one is not apt to go too far wrong.

    Obviously, you will not agree with me, but, I ask you then, by which principles of sound, logical, coherent interpretation, do you arrive at you interpretation of the Bible?

    One last point for the night. You mention Matt 19: 5-6, lifting the clear intent of Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees who, “…came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘It is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” (v.3).

    “And He answered and said to them.’Have you not read that He made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh, (union of marriage!). Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.” (vv. 4-6).

    “They said to Him. ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and put her away?” (v. 7).

    “He said to them. ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the *beginning* it was not so.” (v.8).

    “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and *marries* another, commits adultry: and whoever *marries* her who is divorced commits adultry.” (v.9).

    Interestingly, here Jesus uses the word ‘marries’ twice, a verb, to take as one’s wife or husband, and as incarnate Diety, the eternal Son of God, God of very God, validates the Old Testament Genesis 2:24 narrative account of *marriage* though the word is not explicitly used, but, nevertheless, explicitely implied. BTW, I coined that expression, ‘explicitely implied’ as a logical connotation.

    Hear you tomorrow!


  28. @Praetorious, Getting back to your contention that because the word ‘marriage’ is not used in Genesis 2:24, that there is no institution of marriage in the Bible. Suffice to say, I believe my post of last night, logically, and coherently implies, that the union of becoming ‘one’ flesh and, as was used in the following texts from the Old Testament, confirm that there was such an institution of Marriage.

    “And Judah said unto Onan, go in unto thy borther’s wife, and *marry* her, and raise up seed to thy bother.” (Genesis. 38: 8)

    “If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were *Married* then his wife shall go out with him.” (Exodus 21: 3)

    “If he take him another wife, her food, her rainment, and her DUTY of *Marriage* shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21: 10)

    “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had *Married* for he had *Married* an Ethiopian woman” (Numbers 12:1)

    “And if they be *Married* to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel….” (Numbers 36: 3a)

    “This is the thing which the LORD command concerning the daughter of Zelophehad saying. Let them *Marry* to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they *Marry*” (Numbers 36: 6).

    “For Mahlah, Tizah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were *Married* unto their fathers’s brother’s sons. And they were *Married* into the families…” (Numbers 36: 11, 12a) emphasis added throughout. (See also, Deut 7:3; 22:22; 24:1; and Joshua 23:12).

    I believe that the verses cited above, shows clearly that the institution of ‘marriage’ was very much a part of the Old Testament culture, especially in Numbers 36, and verse 6, where “This IS the thing which the LORD COMMAND….Let them MARRY…”

    You also contend, “In addition, there is no verse in the NT which condemns polygamy, or even defines marriage and one man and woman.”

    An argument from silence certainly does not establish what you are saying.

    Yet, there is ample proof from the New Testament that ‘marriage’ as God originally intended, prior to the fall of Adam into to sin, WAS between one man, and one woman, becoming ‘one’ flesh, in the beauty and sanctity of marriage, until SIN messed it all up.

    Hear the Lord Jesus Christ:

    “And every one that hath forsaken houses, (plural) or brethren, (plural) or sisters, (plural) or father, (singular) or mother, (singular) or WIFE, (singular) or children (plural) …” (Matt. 19: 29) emphasis added.

    No polygamy implied here!

    “And another said, I have *married* A WIFE (singular)….” (Luke 14: 20a) emphasis added.

    No polygamy here either!

    “Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his WIFE (singular) even as himself; and the WIFE (singular) see that she reverence her husband” (Eph. 5: 33) emphasis added.

    “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, have been the wife of ONE man.” (I Tim. 59) Literally, one-man woman.

    “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.” (I Tim. 3: 2)

    Note: ‘…the husband of ONE woman. Some think this means having only one wife at a time, others only one living wife. Let us look at I Corinthians 7: 39, and by contextual analysis, see how Scripture interprets Scripture, a fundamental principle in good hermeneutics.

    Marriage and Remarriage.

    “The WIFE (singular) is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be *married* to whom she will; only in the Lord.” (I Cor. 7:39). emphasis added.

    “I hate “bible-boxing” it’s pointless. I make this claim “Presuppostion” and prejudices, rather than “biblical evidence, have shaped the tradition of biblical interpretaion.”

    Your “bible-boxing” is more appropriately called ‘proof-texing’ that is, taking a single verse, apart from all other text dealing with the same subject matter, and seeking to prove something. Taking a ‘text’ out of context, invariably becomes a ‘pretext.’

    This IS not good biblical hermeneuctis!

    Biblical Hermeneuctis and Linguistic Exegesis, is a very detailed and absolutely necessary course of study at Bible College and Seminary, without a proper grasp and understanding of these detailed principles, one will NOT be in a position to ‘correctly’ divide God’s Word.

    Leviticus 20: 13, “If a man also ‘lie’ with mankind, as he ‘lieth’ with a woman, both of them have COMMITED an ABOMINATION: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    You say, “This verse DOES NOT condemn homosexuality, but sexual acts between men, acts which are not specified.”

    “I can only concede to the verses which use the word homosexual.”

    Come on P, what kind of intelligent reasoning is this?

    The word ‘lie’ ‘…with mankind (a man) as he ‘lieth’ with a woman…’ and the fact that Almighty God emphatically state, “…both of them (men) have COMMITTED AN ABOMINATION…’ by any reasonable, rational, logically, understanding, IS obviously referring to ‘sexual’ activity, regardless of which act(s) are participated in, IT IS NOT permitted by our Creator, it IS ‘…an ABOMINATION…”

    Because, the modern word ‘homosexual’ is not used in the Old Testament,but, rather the euphemism ‘lie’ does NOT validate your illogical rejection of what is emphatically stated, that ‘IF’ a man ‘lie’ in other words, when a man lieth with a woman, in this context, he/she is having somekind of ‘sexual’ activity, and, what God deems an abomination, is when two men, replace this normal activity, man/woman, with being together for the purpose that He Created a man and woman for.

    Another point I want to stress, is this, the Old Testament cultural and linguistic expressions were vastly different from our modern day language, this is why it is imperative to be knowledgable and have access to Hebrew Word Study books, in order to do an etymological study of the meaning of various words used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, though some are very obvious in the intent of their meaning, some are not.

    An example of this euphemistic type of termology used in the OT era, is when we read in Genesis 4:1:

    “And Adam ‘knew’ his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain…”

    ‘Knew’ was a common euphemism for ‘sexual’ relations, rather than saying as we would today, ‘He had sex with his wife; similarly, the euphemism, ‘lie’ with a ‘man’ as with a ‘woman’ constitutes somekind of ‘sexual’ relations, man with man, which God severely calls an abomination.

    BTW, when I use CAPS, I am not shouting at you, not at all, it’s just for emphasis and augmentation, OK!

    Will check in latter!


  29. @Praetorious, Let us get back to your erroneous interpretation of the ‘Sodom’ issue, you say:

    “Gen 19:5, This could not be the sin Sodom was destroyed for, because God had already decided to do so before He sent the angels. The angels came to warn lot to flee. More so, the only apparent sin is ‘the intent to rape’ rather than just homosexuality.”

    Almighty God, in His Omniscience, (ALL knowing) certainly decided to ‘destroy’ Sodom and Gommorah, because, “And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gommorah IS GREAT, and because their SIN is VERY GRIEVOUS.” (Gen. 18:20) emphasis added.

    Therefore, when the angels made their appearance, to DESTROY these twin towns, their SIN (was already) very grievous, now confirmed by the behaviour of the ‘men’ when they saw the two angels, not knowing or realizing that these (two) were not just ordinary ‘men’ BUT angels. Lot knowing the wickedness of these depraved ‘Sodomites’ implored the angels to come into his house, rather than spend the night in the streets, which they eventually agreed to do.

    Now, here are the two verses that you simply will not deal with honestly, trying to skirt around to avoid the obvious ‘intent’ of the Sodomizing ‘men’ of Sodom.

    “But, before they (the angels) lay down, the ‘men’ of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, ALL the people from every quarter: And they called out Lot, and SAID unto him, Where are the MEN (angels) which came in to thee this night? BRING them OUT UNTO US, that we man *KNOW* them.” ( Gen. 19: 4,5) emphasis added.

    As I explained in an earlier post, the Hebew ‘euphemism’ to ‘KNOW’ as the men of Sodom clearly said, ‘…that we may ‘know’ them” was to ‘force’ *rape* homosexually, these two angels, who appeared as men. This is precisely why Lot (v.3) insisted that the visitors come into his house, because he knew the danger they would face from the Sodomites, ‘homosexuals’ of Sodom if they stayed all night outside.

    But, the supernatural power God has enabled His Angels which, is then manifested when these evil Sodomites ‘…came to break the door” (v. 9b)

    The angels then, “And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with *blindness* both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door” (v. 11). Blindness, the Hebrew word (found only here and in 2 Kings 6:18) convey the idea of loss or distortion of vision resulting in mental confusion and bewilderment.

    Yes, as Ezekiel 16: 49, states, “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of *idleness* was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strenghten the hand of the poor and needy.”

    But, verse 50 then goes on to say, which you omitted, “And they were haughty, and COMMITTED ABOMINATION before Me, therefore I took them away as I saw good” (v.50) The obvious ‘committed ABOMINATION, before Me, WAS the blatant homosexuality, that was pervasive throughout Sodom, coupled with their *pride* the first sin that turned angels into demons. Gluttony, is here called, ‘fulness of bread’ and love of ease. ‘Idleness’ is an inlet to much sin, the standing waters gather filth, and the sitting bird is the fowler’s mark. Nether did she ‘strenghten the hands of the poor and the needy.’

    In seeking to bring Ezekiel 16: 49, alone, isolated from the entire chapter, which is not good hemeneutics, as it lifts a ‘single’ verse from its chapter ‘context’ which must never be done, as any one verse of Scripture, must always be read in the ‘context’ of the preceding and following verses, in order to properly understand what is the import of its statement, and meaning.

    Therefore, Ezekiel chapter 16, is dealing with, and depicts ‘Israel” as an unfaithful wife (metaphor) used in relation to her Covenant with Almighty God, which she has blatanly violated with ‘Idolatry’ (cf. Hos. 1-3; Jer. 2; Isa. 1:21; 50:1). Her sin is described in verses 3-34, her punishment in verses 35-52, and her restoration in verses 53-63. In verses 15-34, ‘Isreal’ referred to as the ‘wife’ became unfaithful to God by practicing *Idolatry* (vv. 15-22) and by entering into alliances with foriegn countries (vv. 23-34).

    In verses (20-21) Children were offered in sacrifices to Molech (cf. Jer. 7:30-32; 19: 4-5; 32: 35). In veres (24-25) Idolatry and prostittution were evident everywhere. In verses (26-29) Judah imported foriegn *idols* and made foriegn alliances with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon.

    Therefore, because Israel were so favoured by Almighty God, in Covenant with Him, as He decreed, and had witnessed so much of His blessings on them, like no other nation of people, AND, having now turned their backs on Him, and ventured into such blatant , rampant, wicked *Idolatry* etc, etc, His judgment, on her, and Israel’s punishment is described (vv. 35-43) and justified, because her ‘sin’ collectively, is worse, and expressley so, because of her Covenanted relationship with Almighty God, then Sodom and Samaria (vv. 44-52).

    P, therefore, what you have done, is so typical of many, who attempt reading God’s Word, the Bible, completely out of ‘context’ lifting verses entirely out of there contextual meaning, this, as I have said earlier IS bad hermeneutics, it always produces faulty and erroneous interpretation.

    The word “context’ is composed of two Latin words, “con,” meaning “together”; and “textus,” meaning “woven”; and denotes something that is woven together. In literature it refers to the connection of thought running through a portion of the whole of a writing. In relation to Scripture, it signifies the connection of thought running through either the whole of Scripture, a Testament, a book of the bible, or a particular passage. In being used of God to weave the Biblical ‘contexts’ the divinely Inspired writers of Scripture, utilized two methods; writing fresh revelation, and weaving together previous revelation.

    Therefore, the ‘context’ of Scripture falls into four categories:

    A. The Whole of Scripture Context: The context of any specific verse is the whole of Scripture. No ‘one’ verse should be used on its own apart from its relationship to the whole body of Scripture. The phrase “Scripture interprets Scripture” means that the best interpreter of Scripture is the Scripture.

    B. The Testament Context: Within the whole of Scripture the ‘context’ of any verse is the ‘Testament’ in which it is found. Each of the two Testaments, has its own distinctive character and emphasis. The general emphasis of the Old Testament is ‘Law’, the emphasis on the New Testament is ‘Grace.’ That which is the dividing point between the Testaments is the ‘Cross.’ As a general rule, the New is the interpreter of the Old.

    ‘The New is the Old contained, the Old is the New explained.’

    C. The Book Context: Within the Scripture and the Testament, the ‘context’ of any verse IS the specific book in which it is contained. Each of the sixty-six books of the Bible has its own particular purpose, message, and style (e.g., The general theme of Romans is ‘Justification’ by faith, while the general theme of James, is justification by works. Any verse in either book must be interpreted within the ‘context’ of its respective message).

    D. The Passage Context: Within the whole of Scripture, the Testaments, and the books of the Bible, the ‘context’ of any verse IS the passage in which it occurs. Each book of the Bible is divided subject-wise into passages, each consisting of a group of consecutive verses, pertaining to a particular subject. Any single sentence or verse within a passage must be interpreted in the light of the subject-context of that passage. (e.g., Romans 11: 26 must be interpreted in the light of the subject-context of Romans 9-11, which constitutes the passage.)

    Therefore:

    The context of a verse is the passage.

    The context of the passage is the book.

    The context of the book is the Testament., and,

    The context of the Testament is the whole Bible.

    Therefore, the old adage, “a text out of context is a pretext” must be rephrased to say, “a text taken out of context of the whole Bible is a pretext.” The ‘context, therefore, of any verse is not only the passage, but, also the book, the Testament, and the whole Bible.

    This why, the literary method of ‘weaving together context’ used in ‘writing Scripture’ gives rise to the ‘context principle’ of soundly ‘Interpreting Scripture.’

    The above was taken from “Interpreting The scriptures, A Textbook On How To Interpret the Bible, by Kevin J. Conner and Ken Malmin. And the forgoing, was only scratching the surface of this indispensible work, which covers many other principles that are absolutely necessary in rightly, ‘dividing’ the Word of Truth!


  30. Hello all,

    So I’m taking some a little time out to reply, to michael at least. Forgive me if it’s lacking, I honestly have little time to do this.

    @ Zoe, I am working on a response to your posts, but it will take some time. Responding to Michael’s first because it is less labour intensive at the moment. Would it be too much to ask that you give me some time before posting something else. Not saying this because I want to shut you and your criticisms up, but so that I can have enough time to properly address your posts, and, that in the next post you make, you can address my response. Any such luck for a busy hardworking gentleman? Honestly there would be no way for me to your prolific voluminous posts till after Tuesday but I can try for an earlier date.

    @michael

    “You are so conceited,(too proud)that I cant think of where to start I will give it a shot
    1 I do not subscribe to the way in which you use the word surrogate, a woman giving birth to a child is the mother of that child,people like you use words that are not thought through properly, the only person who it can be truly said of as a surrogate is JESUS CHRIST and he was GOD.he died in our place.”

    I am conceited? No need for name calling. I don’t think that in the course of my posts I had written anything which would make you feel this way.

    You say you “ do not subscribe to the way in which you use the word surrogate” Interesting.
    I said “surrogate mothers”, a surrogate mother being a woman who bears a child on behalf of another. If I had said plain surrogates, then the plain meaning of a”a person who stands in for another in a role or office, say or to appoint a successor, deputy or substitute for oneself” would apply. Surrogate mothers are well established occurrences, indeed I said that a male homosexual couple could use one. All it means in this case is that the mother is replacing the man to carry and birth the child. Being a surrogate mother is one of the most generous things one can do, to help out another who can’t have a baby, whether it be a man, or a woman.
    I do not understand what bounteous connotations you associate with the word. Jesus was more of the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices though. There is a difference between mere surrogacy and self sacrifice.

    “You have replaced the word man and woman by using the word( human)this is what I call slight of hands(impolite act)there are certain things that women can do that men cant and visa versa”

    Michael, I refer you simply to your post, the one which I replied to:
    “first of all let me say this the family is the bed rock of human civilization”
    Clearly I did not replace “the word man and woman” as you yourself did not use either of the two.
    You used the word human, so I used it as well in my reply. Are you then guilty of “slight of hands”

    “man can and has existed with out family, again you have tried to muss lead man as a individual and woman can and do live by them self but man as the species do need one another to exist”
    Umm michael, there is no “mis lead”ing here.

    I said:
    “I think that humans are the foundation of civilization, humans working together” Clearly, by using humans I have included both men and women, and I clearly said that human working together are necessary for civilization’s existence. Men and women have existed without a family, but I never said all men and women have. Humans do need to cooperate and do need eachother to exist because we are and have been raised as social creatures.

    To point 4:
    Yes, and I maintain this. The mistake that bout you and Zoe make is taking what I have said to mean that there is “no institution of marriage period”, there is, but not exclusively as one man and one woman. Go find a verse about marriage to cure me of this error instead of repeating yourself.

    I can’t say that my schooling is responsible for my manner of speech nor can I say that my education has any bearing on logic, unless I was educated on how to spot fallacious arguments, which I was not.

    And michael, I am not trying to “manipulate” into thinking that”evil is good”. That is being disingenuous now. I am merely putting my views out there, for all criticism and glory they may attract and am showing you what holes exist in your argument. I so far am the only one on this entire thread who has “put forward their case” . So naturally I would try my best to do so with as much clarity as I can muster. The fact that you use the pejorative “Bullers” shows me that your arguments are more motivated by fear/hatred/insensitivity/misunderstanding that reason.

    It is human nature to sympathize and empathize and otherwise understand the feelings of other humans.

    Readdressing that East Anglia article. Apparently this matter is a movement out of the consideration for a child’s and parent’s happiness, such that the child would feel comfortable and not outcast by 2 simple words. This was a response to a growing number of cases where this occurred and not an effort to make it into what you are suggesting. About adultery, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, just a false analogy.

    Best Regards,

    @Zoe, hang in there, I’ll reply to you yet


  31. Zoe girl or boy, as the case may be, you need to get yuhself some life, as in life outside your religious obsession. People like you scare me, seriously.


  32. catholics should denounce the
    catholic priests who abused young boys
    in their care for being religious and hypocritical etc
    but the same goes for buddhist priests
    who do the same


  33. @Praetorious, I do believe and understand what it is like for you as a hardworking man, and therefore, unable to find the necessary time to respond as you would like to.

    Your refer to my posts in response to what you had submitted earlier on, as ‘….your prolific voluminous posts…’ and kindly asking me to give you a chance to reply/respond, but, I only responded in my (3) posts essentially to what you had stated, was your position on these matters. As a serious believer in the authority of God’s Word, the Bible, and as a student of theology, I have to respond appropriately, which I honestly don’t believe was ‘prolific/voluminous, either, but, rather, dealing as briefly and concisely as possible with the ‘issues’ you raised.

    And, yes, it also became necessary to elaberate on certain points that needed to be clarified, biblically, and linguistically, as there is no other way to, “…earnestly ‘contend’ for the faith, (body of doctrinal truth) which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1: 3b).

    So, P, while I appreciate that time is not on your side to respond as you would like, I have to do what I have to do, and that is to post what is absolutely necessary in a reasonable, coherent, logical, Scriptural and Biblical manner, always using and applying the sound, established principles of Biblical Hermeneutics, Contextual Analysis, and Linguistic Exegesis, as there is no other way, to ‘righty’ *divide* (interpret) God’s Word.

    Wishing you a good night, and a safe and happy Independence weekend.


  34. Zoe, I agree with Praetorius for not responding to you – why bother when you expose yourself and make his arguments for him. And I agree with Anonymous(2) – you need to get a life.


  35. Here is an interesting statistic.

    The Nation today has a article that notes one in three new HIV infections as being a female.

    That means the other two are male.

    Now, maybe Heorgi8e Porgie can enlighten here, but I thought, maybe wrongly or not, that it is harder for a male to catch HIV due to the nature of intercourse and bleeding etc, than a female.

    So, if that belief were true, then surely the HIV figures would be predominantly female?

    Thus, the current statistics would mean that either

    – men are having more intercourse thus becoming more exposed, which I doubt

    – men are performing ‘other’ intercourse i.e. anal, and homosexual intercourse, making them more prone to exposure

    The answer to this lies mainly on the question whether men are, due to the nature of intercouse between man/ woman, less exposed to HIV.

    Right or wrong?


  36. @Crusoe // November 28, 2009 at 5:05 AM. Not sure how these statistics are obtained by the Nation, but……. I do suggest that the true figures in Barbados are not even begun to be known, due to the attitudes of people like Zoe. I suspect that they are FAR higher, bordering on epidemic, than we know. People do not want to come forward and be tested or, if tested, they are more likely to have the tests done outside of Barbados, rather than in Barbados, where the ‘news’ might get out.

    HIV/AIDS is not going to go away, neither is irresponsible sex, no matter what sex or sexual persuasion anyone happens to be. Thus, until a cure and innoculation are found, the question as to why the individual has caught the virus (be it homosexual, heterosexual, anal, cunnilingus, felatio) is extremely unhelpful and does nothing to assist early diagnosis that would probably cause the person diagnosed to take precautions against passing it on.

    I don’t rely on the statistics you cite. And I certainly don’t think it assists at all in finding the true statistics, to discuss how people may have got the virus.


  37. People do not want to come forward and be tested or, if tested, they are more likely to have the tests done outside of Barbados, rather than in Barbados, where the ‘news’ might get out.

    @Anon

    The above is an interesting observation, care to elaborate? In does make a serious indictment on the medical profession and support services.


  38. David,

    Your site is blocked where I am, so if I may offer the following you can feel free to post on my behalf.

    I suggest that on the causes and spread of HIV/AIDS, people take a good look at UNAIDS 2008 report; the media kit is very helpful, .

    I offer some comments on their points in […]

    Key points:

    Surveillance systems are largely inadequate in several countries [so local data need to be treated with utmost caution]

    Unprotected heterosexual intercourse is the region’s main driver of HIV transmission, [that should mean that an infected woman can infect many men, or that an infected man may infect many women and men; so how the spread goes via this route is complex]

    however, unprotected sex between men is also a significant factor in several epidemics.

    As many as one in eight (12%) reported HIV infections in the region occurred through
    unprotected sex between men. It reportedly represents the main driver in Cuba, and

    studies in Trinidad and Tobago have found HIV prevalence of 20% among men who

    have sex with men. [Interesting that it says ‘as many’, whereas it could easily be ‘as few’]

    The Caribbean epidemics occur in the context of high levels of poverty and
    unemployment, gender and other inequalities, and considerable stigma

    The scaling up of prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV programmes in
    several countries, including Barbados, Guyana and Jamaica, has significantly reduced

    the rate of transmission to infants.

    Remember, that drug use is a key means of transmission worldwide, as well as simple transmission through birth from infected females.

    Barbadians may need to reflect on what may be happening as the economy falters and poverty takes wider hold.


  39. @praetorious
    I will first of all deal with the statement surrogate mothers are well established occurrences-indeed male homosexual could use one,your statement.Let me say this i respect women,secondly I do not see them as a commodity every person that come into this world come via the womb,what about the child does it not deserve a mother what i can see happening here is that humanity is being tossed out the window for the sake of indulging wanton behavior this is untenable.
    look lines must be drawn, in the pass people use to adopt children only now because homosexual men want to claim the impossible that we have this scenario,where the homosexual fraternity can claim that they too can be a family with children this is fallacious, if one choose to live as a homosexual man/men don’t then expect to have children.I find homosexual men behavior and mannerisms irritating and objectionable
    I am sorry that i mentioned about Jesus to you if one is not a christian it is difficult for one then to understand where i was coming from what i was trying to say is that he was the only truly surrogate where he said he died for us.
    So you do recognise that with out male and female we would fail to exist so why are you arguing for other types relationships
    babadus is a small place and we cant have what happened in San Francisco with the bath house and that
    you say that your schooling is not responsible for manner of speech? are you serious
    as bajans we know what is meant by buller and i guest we also know what is meant by wicker and there is no need to extract every word for its meaning but I guest this is a cultural defect


  40. @Praetorious, Good morning, trust that you are well.

    I just carefully re-read your first post on this thread, Nov, 22, @12:16AM, where you make several conjectural statements, naturally from your obvious ‘humanistic’ secular worldview perspective, which are essentially, ‘relativist’ in orientation, that there is no absolute, moral right or wrong, as is reflected in your statement:

    “There is nothing which explicitly says what we ‘can’ or ‘cannot do, and which as certains a ‘sole’ use for our members. That is something entirely dependent on us, were you born with an instruction manual tied to your toes?

    You then conclude , “I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But, we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, religious arguments, and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.”

    So, P, only those holding to your ‘relativist’ worldview, no moral absolutes, no such thing as ‘right’ or wrong’ no such thing as ‘good’ and ‘evil, anything goes, as long as you do not infringe on any one’s basic rights, one is free to do as you please, morally, no consequences to worry about at all, a literal ‘value’ free, ‘value’ neutral society!

    Tell me then, P, how come ‘murder’ is strictly prohibited in just about every know culture, society, regardless of how far back in antiquity we look? If there is ‘no’ absolute moral right or wrong, from where did humanity get this ‘notion’ that it IS NOT right to ‘murder’ another fellow human-being?

    Natural law possesses one of the longest narratives in the history of human ideas, and clearly derives from an ‘transcendent’ being, not subject to the limitations of, the material universe, that inherently guide us toward what is the common ‘good’ so that we can co-exist rationally, without which, there would be utter chaos. And this principle of ethics and moral certitude, has been found way back in every civilization of antiquity, notwithstanding man’s bent, driven by sin, which always carries us in the wrong moral and ethical direction, which has, and continues to cause terrible pain and unrest for all societies, every where, bar none!

    This inherent “unwritten law” of moral and ethical awareness, is indelibly imprinted in the ‘soul’ of every living human being, regardless of where you look, it transcends culture, race, and ethinicity, and constantly appeals to an intuitive basis for ‘morality’ that stands over and above humanistic convention.

    Therefore, as such, human conventions, must conform to these unchanging principles of justice, or risk the warth of our Creator, Almighty God.

    History is replete with evidence, from civilization to civilization, that whenever mankind violates these inherent principles of moral and ethical conviction and certitude, the price he pays, is the ultimate demise and ruination of all that he tried to build, outside of Almighty God’s blueprint for him.

    This is evidently seen, in the recorded annals of ancient history of all the so-called great empires, who flagrantly, and blatantly violated all of God’s moral, ethical, and righteousness standards, and all came crashing down in utter ruin, one by one.

    God’s Word, which is forever settled in heaven, never, ever fails in its pronouncements, one way or the other.

    “Except the Lord build the house (nation) they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” (Psa. 127:1).

    These universal forms of natural law, (i.e., morality, ethics) are eternal and changless. For, they provide the intelligibility for all particular beings. In this way , we see the first rendering of a “human nature” that applies to all members, regardless of their temporal existence or their geographical location. This God given universal nature, so inherent in mankind, insures the constancy, and continuing *identity* of the particular. Thus, the form provides an ontological grounding for epistemological certainty. That is, we can be certain that even though particular humans may vary in shape, size, colour, and appearance, the universal form of humanity will not vary from place to place or from time to time, since, it is the eternal changeless form in which all the particulars participate.

    Therefore, given the fact, that there is a ‘transcendent’ human nature, it follows, that because of our sin nature, which came through the ‘fall’ of Adam, that some actions will inevitably lead to the *flourishing* of that nature, and others to its *corruption.*

    Interestingly, the pagan philosopher Cicero, who did not deal with the ‘doctrine of creation’ nevertheless, did claim that God is the ‘author’ of our nature, who has established the laws of right and wrong, and it is worthy of note, that Cicero lists the natural law as the following characteristics:

    1. God has established it in nature.

    2. It is eternally valid and invariant from culture to culture.

    3. All people recognize it.

    4. It cannot be abolished., and,

    5. It directs us to the good and away from evil.

    God’s Word, the Bible, makes it abundantly clear, that what some philosophers recognized as inherently true in our human nature, is resolutely declared in His Word:

    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of *men* who hold (suppress) the *truth* in unrighteousness; Because that which may be *known* of God is ‘manifest’ in them; (natural law) for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are *clearly* seen, being *understood* by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they (mankind) are without EXCUSE.” (Rom. 1: 18-20) emphasis added.

    I will be responding to your other conjectural statements from this first post of yours, as they go to the heart of your ‘secular’ humainstic worldview; while you take your time in responding to my other posts.

    Take care, and drive safely.

  41. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados Avatar
    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados

    Zoe, you mention murder being prohibited in most cultures. Where then does human sacrifice fall as part of former religious practices? Just trying to judge where your line is drawn.


  42. @Praetorious, I just want to answer one more of your very biased statements.

    “I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But, we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, *religious* arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.” emphasis added.

    I will quote the following as it goes to the heart of your *intolerance* especially toward any *religious* input into this most serious, social, and moral issue of gay rights.

    ‘Gay Rights”

    Tolerance.

    Carl Horn III, J.D., University of South Carlolina, Attorney, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

    Says:

    “Federal agencies and federally funded projects have sought to expand the definition of ‘Sex discrimination’ to include what is euphemistically referred to as ‘Sexual preference’ or ‘Sexual Orientation.”

    The question that Horn poses in America, is equally relevant and pertinent for us here in Barbados; and it is this:

    ‘Whose values should be reflected in our Law and public policy?’

    In answer to this question, Horn says:

    “Whether sexual ethics are examined in the context of personal morality, in terms of the proper role of men and women in the church and society, or in regard to current public policy questions, the conclusion is much the same. The traditional answers from Judeo/Christian history, philosophy, and theology are often dismissed without a hearing, and our heritage including the *moral* roots of our legal and political systems is being exchanged for the views that the enlightened *secularists* offer in its place. While the biblical values affirmed by Evangelicals and other Orthodox Christians and Jews, may not, ‘ipso facto’ be appropriate for legislation, there are numerous instances in which these ancient traditions do offer the best alternative for public affirmation. As Lutheran theologian Richard John Neuhaus has written:”

    “It was thought until very recently, by the cultural leadership of the Western world, that (the source of public values) had been resolved..by excluding religion and religious-based morality from the public arena…The idea of the separation of church and state…has come to by remarkable *convolution* of logic and law, come to mean in the minds of many people, the separation of religiously based values from public policy. But, the period is now past when it was assumed that these issues could be resolved by simply removing one side of the debate from the public square…We are NOT talking about imposing a belief system, BUT, rather about *resisting* the *imposition* of an ‘alien’ belief system, that *impose* themselves under the guise of being *value-neutral* and *value-free* when in fact they are ‘laden’ with all kinds of values, which are alien to the beliefs, the dreams, the (very) convictions of the American people,” emphasis added, and I dare say, the majority of Barbadians.

    What is so one-sided from the ‘secularists’ approach to this issue, is that while they are obviously in the ‘minority’ they want, stubbornly, to insist, that the ‘majority’ of us citizens, who believe one way or the other, in God, and clearly defined moral ‘roots’ that our ‘voice’ must NOT be heard in the public square, and ‘…leave poorly reasoned arguments, *religious* arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.”

    So, P, just your ‘secularists’ value-free, value-netural, godless ‘anything’ goes system of immorality, must have the say over all others, who constitute the majority of citizens, whose voices still determine in our democracy, who rules, and upholds our public policy?


  43. My point on the relevance of the origin of infection was made to highlight the issue that although there is an argument made that homosexuality is not widespread, the incidence of HIV infection would seem to indicate otherwise.

    In fact, it would seem to indicate that those forms of intercourse, including honosexual, seems to be more prevalent than some would have us believe.


  44. @praetorious it is a followup to my reply AT 10.30 28.11.09
    “I think that humans are the foundation of civilization, humans working together” Clearly, by using humans I have included both men and women, and I clearly said that human working together are necessary for civilization’s existence. Men and women have existed without a family, but I never said all men and women have. Humans do need to cooperate and do need each other to exist because we are and have been raised as social creatures.
    you are missing the point text books do say human civilizations but before we can get to this point you have to accept at the beginning where one has small villages of people existing it is always a heterosexual existence and another thing you will notice it always one woman one man and even at this level there is always some domestic tension either between the woman and men of that family group or with their neighbours eg look at most of the tribes people living in the south America’s rain Forrest do we see homosexual men or women with children do we ever see them as a family group?wonder why


  45. @Zoe
    Certainly your previous comments have not been as long as you deem duly required by a good theological paper, however, in the context of a forum, you must admit they are long posts.
    You may be angered by me saying this, but you make it seem as if you need a degree to understand the Bible. The true meaning of the Bible. From any particular passage every individual can find so many meanings from it, how can you assume that your interpretation is the only correct one? Even having been to all of your theology classes, you are only believing the agreed interpretation of the group that invented all of the rules. Invented. People agreed on how to interpret it. Not God directly. As a relevant example, your argument for the sin of Sodom being homosexuality is not the same argument the Jewish, using the same Old Testament, agree upon. Instead they believe that “the cities were destroyed because the inhabitants were nasty, depraved, and uncompromisingly greedy.” (http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html). You may conclude that there were homosexual acts in Sodom, but there were so many other horrible things, why would they have been punished for homosexuality alone?
    Now I will focus on your last comment to try to help Praetorius. I feel backtracking would annoy him, being such a busy fellow.
    Now he says an absolute right or wrong. He does not deny that there are things which will be right or wrong in every society. He disbelieves in the concept that there are fixed, solid, absolute morals arbitrary to our social systems – imposed on them instead of developed by them (do correct me if I’m wrong, Tori).
    Now if we can please exclude debating upon evolution (that would draw this topic much further off-course than it has already gone…start a new forum for that) I will speak about how murder can come to be strictly prohibited in every culture. Whether you believe that the first humans just appeared on the planet or not, you must agree that at some point there were a few originating humans compared to what we had today. We know that they were a lot more primitive. They had to face many beasts and such in the wild. Now because humans were so much physically weaker than other animals it became essential that they live in groups. People who went off on their own were more likely to be killed. This means that people would have had to develop ways to live harmoniously in a group. Even if you believe this group included Caine and Abel and whatnot. Obviously Caine was scorned from the group when he killed his brother. Even though we can’t know how people thousands of years ago felt about that, we know that this would have severely drained group resources. Anything that drains group resources more than benefits it is outcast from groups in nature, so it is assumed that this happened in early populations. (to be continued)


  46. Any cheating in a group, where someone tries to benefit himself alone, drains group resources, and this person is outcast. Thus people have developed an anxiety to doing anything that would harm others in the group, for fear of being outcast, while also developing reciprocation. The more good you do for the group, the more it will give back to you in your needs. Now this is a marvelous thing, but it is not solely found in humans. Even guppies show reciprocation. Humans have developed many manners and morals that dictate how to live in groups. So have many many other animals. Thus ethical awareness need not be limited by material limitations, if you don’t consider animals to have been graced by God with morals.
    Every civilization or person that falls and loses it all is because they are outcast from other humans. They are cheating the rest of the humans, and it shows just how much we are dependent on each other.
    Now, you say “These universal forms of natural law, (i.e., morality, ethics) are eternal and changless.” Sorry they are not as concrete. People from different cultures have different manners. There are different rules in each culture to show kindness, respect, etc, or even to show emotion. Different cultures have different norms, such as polygamy, which we would consider taboo. That is their way of life, and that is how to be a good human in their society. Over all cultures, morals like being kind are valued in different measures. I would agree that we are all human beings, but there is great debate over what is universal human nature, and if it exists, in psychological fields.
    Your example of murder is good for showing exactly how morality is changeable. You say no one thinks murder is right. When the Crusaders drove through other civilisations and committed mass murder that was right to them. The Americans believed it was right to bomb Hiroshima. It was right to burn “witches” in Salem. Every government which has an army and capital punishment shows that they believe it is right to murder in certain situations.
    You say there is a transcendent human nature. Evidence suggests that no one is born human; instead it is a thing that we learn to become. Feral children, such as Genie, never develop a sense of morality. In fact they do not care whether someone is taking care of them or not. They exist to fulfill their bodily requirements. They lose their capacity to form language and form extremely limited social bonds. Other evidence comes from Eastern Block orphanages where the children were never stimulated by attention and love from other humans, so have little interest in others, and form restricted bonds with caretakers. It is the treatment of our infants and children, which we ourselves have learned from our culture, that causes the development of a normal human. If we were inherently this way, any child, no matter the circumstances, would be interested in love and attention. But this is not true as shown by the feral and eastern block children.


  47. @Dennis Jones, “You mention murder being prohibited in most cultures. Where then does human sacrifice fall as part of former religious practices. Just trying to judge where your line is drawn.”

    Dennis, before answering your specific question, re ‘human’ sacrifice, it may be instructive to understand Biblical jurisprudence was based upon the assumption that ‘man’ is under obligation to carry out the revealed will of God in leading a holy life, respecting the rights of God and his fellow man, not simply upon a utilitarian basis of a pragmatic nature, but, rather as a creature made in the likeness of God. This obligation was regarded as unchangeable and absolute, beyond the authority of man to amend or adapt to any general standard prevailing in current society.

    The moral requirements of Yahweh were not in the slightest lowered or affected because of the general breakdown of ethical standards prior to the Flood (Gen 6). On the contrary, the entire human race was consigned to destruction for flouting God’s law, except for one family (Noah’s) which still upheld it. Even in the Mosaic legislation it was made clear that such basic principles as capital punishment for ‘murder’ were NOT subject to modification or abolition; on the contrary, any community which failed to punish ‘murderers’ with death would incur God’s curse and be subject to His retibution (Num 35: 31-34). Even in NT times this responsibility of the community or state to inflict the death penalty for capital crimes is maintained (Luke 20:16; Acts 25:11; Rom 13:4), even though his personal relationships, the true believer is to return good for evil and turn the other cheek. But the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to say about the enforcement of public justice by the state. “Do not resist one who is evil” (Matt 5:39) applies only to the behaviour of the individual, not the state or civil authority charged with the responsibility of protecting society against wrongdoers.

    The Mosaic legislation does not clearly distinguish between crimes and torts. There was little legislation relative to contract actions; this type of law did not become elaborated until later development of commerce and industry under settled urban conditions, such as those reflected by the Old Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. The Mosaic code pertains only to a nomadic culture or to a simple agricultural economy, appropriate to the times of the Exodus and the Conquest; had it been composed at an later period, it would certainly have dealt with medical malpractice, fraudulent building-contractors and merchants, and class distinctions of various sorts, such as marked the later history of Israel.

    Broadly speaking, the Mosaic legislation dealt with two main types of offense; the religious and the civil, since all offences had a Godward reference as well as a manward, human relations were viewed as a direct concern of the Lord Himself.

    Infant Sacrifice, was a kind of cultic ‘murder’ perpetrated against helpless infants in the worship of Moloch and other Canaanite idols with allegedly bloodthirsty appetites. It was punished by stoning to death (Lev 20:20. Later on, in the reign of Ahaz (743-728 B.C.) and especially in the time of King Manasseh (696-641 B.C. ), this abominable practice found government sanction, and there ensuded a general breakdown of ‘moral’ life and the glorification of violence ( 2 Kings 21: 6, 16).

    I just want to stress that homocide, the basic sanction against ‘murder’ is contained in Genesis 9:6; “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in His own image.” Since ‘murder’ is a crime against God, in whose image man was created, it demands the extreme penalty of capital punishment. The concept is clearly retibutive justice, there is no room for the modern principle of seeking the rehabilitation of the muderer to persuade him to desist, if possible from committing further homicide. Nor does the sixth commandment in the Decalogue raise the slightest question as to the right and duty to take the life of anyone guilty of murder. It does not say, “Thou shalt not kill” BUT, “Thou shalt NOT commit murder” the verb ‘rasah’ is a specific term for *murder* and is NEVER used of executing a criminal or slaying an enemy in battle, war! In the chapter following the Decalogue, it is required that *murder* be punished by death (Exodus 21: 12)

    Historically, when ever any kind of ‘human’ sacrifice was practiced, it was almost invariably to be found in ancient pagan societies, whose culture was awash in terrible idolatry, temple prostitutes, male and female, fertility rites, etc, etc, this IS why Almighty God, instructed the Jews, to literally kill everything in their sight, as they entered the promise land, as He directed them.

    It is only when we begin to comprehend the absolute Holiness and Righteousness of our Creator, who cannot look upon sin, that, maybe, we can begin to understand why He commanded Israel to eradicate ALL life from those beastly, demonic, child-sacrificing cultures, before taking possession of the land He promised to Isreal.

    Again, this is why God dealt so sternly with any sexual deviance whatsoever, even within the Jewish community, adultery, fornication, rape and seduction, incest, because any single ‘act’ of any of these various kinds of sexual immorality, would ultimately affect the entire community, which in today’s world, has wrecked havoc on us . It took me a while to ponder this reality seriously, but, when we really see the impact this kind of immorality has on any society, and its wide ranging consequences to almost everyn one, then, may be, we can understand why our Creator, who knows what is best for us, imposed those strict laws against such immorality, not just between man and woman, BUT, the one that is against all ‘naturalness’ when a man ‘lieth’ with a man, an utter abomination in the eyes of Almighty God.


  48. I would like somebody to tell me how and where I could meet up with this Almighty God fella so I could hear directly from him what he does or doesn’t find an abomination.


  49. *sorry forgot to put quotation marks around murder being “strictly prohibited in every culture” in the first post.

    So in essence, morality is based on what benefits humans on a whole. When things that are normally seen as immoral are perceived as moral (as in the case of murder mentioned above) this is when they believe greater benefit will come to the whole than not doing it. Morality is learnt, and not naturally imprinted in us. We have the capacity to learn it, but it is not, at the outset, there.

    Now what the hell does this have to do with homosexuality exactly. Instead of going off on a rampage about humanistic/relativist/ whatever beliefs, we need to bring this back to HOMOSEXUALITY.

    Morality is related to homosexuality because obviously people are very against it because they believe it is wrong.
    What this debate so far has failed to bring up is that homosexuality is not an ACT, it is an IDENTITY.
    Do we ever bother heterosexual people about what they do in the bedroom? As long as there is no children possibly able to be produced it is wrong? Every time you use a condom or birth control it’s wrong? Fallatio is wrong? S/M is wrong? Sex before marriage is wrong?
    Now. Let’s say you agree with the last question. Just because you know a 18 year old boy who has a girlfriend, and is unmarried, you are not going to scorn him and talk behind his back about how disgusting he is.
    Now if you have a man that you know has a boyfriend, people will speak his name badly, he will have animosity towards him, he may even be refused jobs. You don’t know what he does in the bedroom. You may not agree with it. But is it right to subject him to hatred?
    And then being homosexual is not simply engaging in homosexual activity. A gay man has a specific gender, different from a male gender, different from a female gender. The same goes for lesbians.
    We all agree it is unfair to treat women a certain way because of their gender. Yet we do not recognize the identities of homosexual, transgendered or transexual people.
    Is it right for u to kill someone because of their identity??
    Is it right for u to treat them as second rate citizens because of who they are??
    Is it right for u to make them feel hated because of their gender??

    How can these not be human rights.
    To be not discriminated against due to sexuality.

    It doesn’t mean you have to agree with their personal private activities – which u dont even know they do or not explicitly.
    You shouldn’t treat ANYONE with animosity and hatred. If you can’t stand them, just leave them alone.


  50. @ zoe’s comment specifically:

    1. Any population that did not stop murderers would be less fit than other populations because group stability would fall apart and humans do not survive well on their own. Also other human civilizations would kill them to ensure murderers did not enter their population.
    2. Crimes and torts are human inventions.
    3. The distinction between murder and killing is human invention. Both involve a human dying at the hands of another, in the most explicit sense. What makes sacrifice to a god different to killing an innocent civilian for a god, except for meanings humans have made up about it. Killing in war is shedding the blood of man by man.

    4. Beastly and demonic is an opinion. Those cultures have rather beautiful stories and myths if you care to read, with morals not unlike the morals of any other Abrahamic religion.

    5. Immorality threatens social stability, social instability makes a population less able to survive.

    6. Many animals have homosexual activity as a part of normal social interaction (eg Bonobo monkeys). It is not necessarily unnatural. Things which are unnatural defy the laws of physics, therefore do not occur. Anything which does occur, in this natural world, therefore can be considered to be natural.

    7. You can ignore this comment if you want to prevent further and further backtracking in the debate. I just wanted to make these points.

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