@ Crusoe

I’m sure my very dear friend BAF will understand the irony of my offer just as he did my question on the colour of the letters on his T shirts. Light beige, by the way, would look very nice I think.

On God – of course I was taking the orthodox position as if I was Zoe.

On marriage – it’s only a paradigm and I’m sure there are other ways of registering what Rosemary refers to as “love and respect” – to which I would add ‘friendship’. If we jettisoned the concept, think, there would be no adultery, no children out of wedlock, no horning, no empty matrimonial observance, no outside woman, no conventional morality, no husbands’ clubs for the incredulous and oppressed,….so much of the language which orchestrates our lives would simply die.

@robert. indeed to all who are reading.

In the next 50yr homosexuality will be legalised in most countries including Barbados . Once homosexuality becomes the norm then pedophilia and beastiality will follow. Society will eventually become drowned in deviant sexual behaviour. What would be the impact in the long run ? If same sex union /marriage become the preferred choice in Barbados it would lead to a sharp fall in the bithrate and the population of Barbados . Same sex marriage and other forms of deviant sexual behaviour would eventually depopulate Barbados. Homosexuality and other forms of deviant sexual behaviour are being promoted by certain western interest ( UK ,David Cameron) to depopulate certain parts of the globe.

While the stated course of action is to deal with such matters in-house,I could see where Peter’s fustration could have reached the boiling point.This fracas started with a caller on Tuesday.It was funny as hell and could have ended there,but no….Ronnie Clarke in a style akin to that of the jehovah’s witness,who knocks at your door,disrupts your day and has no other interest but to cram their religious belief down your throat,went on the offensive.Subtle or otherwise it offended,and Peter answered.Nowhere in his monologue did he impugn the integrity of the station.As to this nonsense about apology,did Admiral get one?Did Chris Sinckler get one?

Some may say that male/female heterosexuality involves the female receiving large quantities of sometimes diseased male ejaculate into her healthy vagina.

Does this mean that female/female homosexuality is intrinsically cleaner that male/female heterosexuality?

I’ve heard that is is much easier for a woman to catch sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV from a man than from a women.

Does this therefore mean that female/female homosexuality is therefore the cleanest and therefore the most desirable form of sex.

Using the health/hygiene argument shall we women therefore give up having sex with men because is is all too often unhygienic?

Shall we big up the lesbians then?

Quoting str82Dpoint”it makes no sense splitting hairs over the Bible because faith has no logic.”

Indeed faith may have no logic.

But CIVIL LAW MUST HAVE LOGIC.

Barbados is not a theocracy, and none of us would like it to be a theocracy. If Barbados was a theocracy then both fornication and adultery would have to be punishable by law. And if that was the case then many of us and our mothers (and fathers) and sons and daughters would be facing some stiff jail time.

Quoting jdacs ” adultery is wrong but many men and women were born out of such actions”

And Adolf Hitler was born out of an act of fornication. I think the world would have been a better place if he had never been born.

We act as though birth is always a good thing.

3 cannibal cases in the headlines of the news right now.

It would have been better if those 3 guys had not been born.

Birth is not always a good thing.

What if homosexuality is designed as a natural brake on population growth?

If all the homosexuals who have never had children, had had children, would the world now have 8 billion people? 9 billion maybe?

We should be happy that people who are exclusively homosexual are not adding to population growth.

@Random

What are you talking about that Barbados is backward?

Homosexuality is an issue which has split the developed world in half.

My beloved Barbados is all too often backwards as shite.

We neva ready David.

We neva ready for anything progressive.

We always fight the new.

It is one of our greatest weaknesses.

My beloved Barbados still.

A moderator attacking senior management of the Starcom on the airwaves and calling the name of one of the employees ever so often was very distasteful.

I would reiterate that it is only fair that those of us who were offended by the poor taste of the programming on that station on that particular day be offered a sincere apology to the general public, other members of the Starcom staff, and advertisers who in these trying times keep the program afloat.

He had apologized for the late start of the program while he got his notes together to attack Clarke, therefore I’m calling on him to also apologize for his “aggressive” behaviour. Seeing the program manager being dragged in the gutter by an employee of the station was in such poor taste and I would hope that this spirit doesn’t come upon our children who might be listen.

Can we really take a pollster seriously who always seems to have an agenda on his sleeve?

The credibility of a pollster must be supported by data. Let us not confuse the opinionated Wickham with conclusions made from data. Vic Fernandes will admit that what is happening makes for good ratings.

Where is the balance when that manager as far as I know carried out no personal attack on any employee?

@David

You are correct. Polls are scientific ways of investigating a phenomenon hence people should not get confused with Peter the pollster, and peter who believes that homosexuals should not be discriminated against.

I just cant unerstand why some people are not able to divorce the two, but then again, we have so many hypocrites in this society. I recently read some resarch where one the finding was those persons, particulary males who openly condemn homosexual acts have an inept fear that they migh have some feeling towrads the same sex. If I can find the said research, i will forward it to you under confidential cover.

@ AC

On what a priest should preach.

But the problem is that some would say that the bedrock of the faith is the Bible and that the Bible is inerrant. That is essentially the Zoe position. Result: we are bound to accept the priestly Levitican code…..with the result that, to use David’s jargon, half the world is homophobic

So: do we accept the Book? Or pick-an-mix? Or simply burn it?

Is it time we reject God altogether? If so, what would we be rejecting? Would it be the god who ‘says’, the god who ‘hates the sin but loves the sinner’; the god who has now ceased to ‘speak’? The god who ‘smokes’ on the mountain? The old man up in the sky? Do we NEED that god?

Or: to embrace your point, in a simple way, is it time to embrace religiousness rather than religion?

”He was deemed a womanizer”
yet he was given resounding support by the american people particularlythe women and was able to get on with his life successfully compared to the other political womaniserslike for instance john edwards. doesn’t seem fair to me.

Once homosexuality becomes the norm then pedophilia and beastiality will follow.”
i hold that view as well’ what would prevent those so inclined from lobbying for legalisation of these permissive acts under the guise that they are god’s children as well and ought to be loved and respected and not discriminated against? soon it will be the paedophiles the pornographers, the white collar thieves . be careful what we are visiting upon ourselves in going overboard in our support of abnormal minority behaviours.

Is it time we reject God altogether? If so, what would we be rejecting? Would it be the god who ‘says’, the god who ‘hates the sin but loves the sinner’; the god who has now ceased to ‘speak’? The god who ‘smokes’ on the mountain? The old man up in the sky? Do we NEED that god?
i try to avoid commenting on religion because i find the mystery beyond my comprehension but rather try to live my life in concert with the simple nuances of love, peace, happiness, kindness, selflessness and gratitude. the problem with the western religion of christianity is that we portend to worship but do not know to whom or what we worship. our perception of the almighty creator remains warped in time. we seem to perceive god as a man with a big stick in the shy overseeing right and wrong as he sees fit.

@concerned

It is not accurate to say that Peter Wickham is an ’employee’ of Starcom. What the incident has exposed is how personalities can shape and or stoke public opinion.

@ Concerned…Last January on a morning show Ronnie Clarke played three political calypsos back to back to back.Gypsy’s Sinking Ship,Alloes,and I think Cro Cro. Message in de music .His is a position that affords him the latitude to do such.His right,his opinion.Peter Wickham took the chance to air his.I will further add that this controversy could have been avoided.After De Announcer’s Botsy Theology,should have been Cubba’s Serious,followed by Ouchie’s Cannon.All like now we would be talking bout “De Clown Prince Show”revisited.

Ronnie should not be left off the hook as in a heated climate of insensitivity and bigotry towards the gay community the last thing any management of any leading news organisation wants to be is to be caught up in a whirlwind of innuendo and intolerance towards any one race or group of people . Ronnie did go over the boundaries of good taste in representing Starcom with his choice of music as a response to Peter. no wonder Peter responded the way he did and was justifiable in doing so. anybody who should apologise should be Ronnie for showing poor taste and intolerance towards a group of peoplewho all they are seeking is basic human rights BTW did somebody say Ronnie is a christian!

@ Balance

Yes – and so you are discovering ‘religiousness’.

Quoting balance “Once homosexuality becomes the norm then pedophilia and beastiality will follow… soon it will be the paedophiles the pornographers, the white collar thieves”

The difference is that neither the animals or children can consent, and certainly nobody consents to a thief, white collar, or blue collar, taking out money or our things.

Quoting JB June 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM…”It is interesting that VOB would want to shut out persons with known political affiliation.”

Maybe JB it is because “persons with know political affiliations” are too often insufferable bores.

“In the next 50yr homosexuality will be legalised in most countries including Barbados . Once homosexuality becomes the norm then pedophilia and beastiality will follow.”

You gotta love our people. Truly. Truly. Hello there? What planet are you all on? Pedophilia and Beastiality already exist in Barbados. If you don’t believe…what about all the cases of incestuous behaviour in households on the island, and how many children have been molested and raped, even just in the last two years eh? Then lest we forget about those poor chickens that men practice their prowess on eh? And the horse that was found with semen inside its cavity and please, please let us look at that horrid picture of a cow that was left hanging off an incline after rape! No…really…we love to talk bare foolishness. Comes running out of our mouths like water runneth down Collymore Rock on a rainy day! Torrential!

So since we already have P & B on the island, perhaps by legalizing homosexuality, we will have none of those men left to do harm to child nor beast. And this begs my favourite word hmmm….

And then there is following through on loving…boy Kemutu you are special! Love ya bad, hear?:

“If same sex union /marriage become the preferred choice in Barbados it would lead to a sharp fall in the bithrate and the population of Barbados . Same sex marriage and other forms of deviant sexual behaviour would eventually depopulate Barbados.”

Are you insinuating that Barbados has already so many homosexuals with a tendency towards more that if the law is passed to legalize them, all Bajans would go for their same sex and procreation would therefore stop? Ha ha haaaaa……. Well men…and women…all ya done get put into one bag by one of your own…look I laughing so bad here….’cause I am an artist and far too visual for this kind of thought….I see men running around BuhBayduss as gay as they come (pun intended!)….and not a child in sight.

Big men with a so-called education. Ah well. I guess we have to consider the fact that reading and writing is not knowledge. And ignorance prevails.

I would like to see a government with conviction, strong, educated enough to legalize homosexuality whether they lose votes or not. A government that cares about humanity and not ignorance. A government that will go down in the anals of history (you see even history loves anals! so yes! pun indeed intended again!) as being the one that stopped the verbal carnage against a minority of people.

I feel strongly that if homosexuality is legalized all this crap would stop. It would have to. Especially when you see your father, brother, sister, son (lawd have is mercy heart attack time!), daughter, mother…maybe even your wife or husband…come out to raas!!! Ha ha haaaaaaa!!

No. Seriously. You’ve made my day. All of ya.

David…more blogs on homosexuality PLEASE but this time let us study the relevance between Monsanto RoundUp and homosexuality. I have been doing some research and there is no doubt that farmers who spray their land with this become homosexuals overnight! Also anyone out there eating Genetically Modified food.?..I see GMO corn growing here real sweet…well let me tell you some’ing…the western world have injected a homosexual DNA into these plants hear, so nexx time you eat a corn, keep an eye on the kernel!!!

Now perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health will see to it that these products are banned from the country. I saw a farmer the other day wearing a skirt plowing the lands…the Sodom and Gomorrah has begun peoples!! Beware of the coming!!

Ha ha ha haaaaaaa………….HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

At the heart of this controversy between Wickhman and Ronnie Clark, Is the fact that Wickhman is* an confirmed agnostic ‘Relativist* I.e., there is NO absolute moral TRUTH, amoral at its core, a Godless, anythings goes, hence Homosexuality should be TOLERATED as a ‘human’ rights issue, and not a moral one.

Clark on the other hand, is an ardent professing, Born Again, Christian, who is not affraid to stand up for, and declare God’s Word, whose condemnation of men lying with men, Homosexuality, is explicity clear in both the Old and New Teataments.

Also, the use of the principle of ‘Tolerance’ or to tolerate, that we hear coming so often from the ‘relativist’ Gay community, does not, classically speaking, originate with such relativism, as there is NO such thing as RIGHT or WRONG, morally, culturally, so we need to get clear what the principle of ‘Tolerance’ is.

To tolerate is to accept your opponents view, without having to accept it as morally right. Therefore, according to the classical sense of the principle of tolerance, a person holds that his own moral views are true and those of his opponents are flase. But, he still gives his opponent as a person his right to make a case for his views. Thus a person has a duty to ‘Tolerate’ a different moral view, not in the sense that a person of such thinking it is morally correct, but quite the opposite.

In light of these facts about the classical perspective on Tolerance, it should be clear that the ‘word’ is really an ‘absolutist’ position, and IS* inconsistent with normative and metaethical ‘relativism’ and ethical skeptism. If a person does not hold another position to be morally wrong, false, what is there to tolerate?

And, a second problem with metaethical, relativism, is it often happens that the philisophical reasons that motivate this though, in the first place turn out to be SELF-REFUTING. Why so? Because a statement is self-refuting if it falsifies itself and this CANNOT be true. It logically follows, therefore, if relativism and ethical skeptism, is true, one cannot recommend ANY moral behaviour whatever, including TOLERATION of different moral opinions, or even the alledged moral obligation to be skeptical, one cannot deny the existence or knowability of moral “oughts” in one breath and affirm a moral “ought” in the next breath; and hope to remain consistent. No way!