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.
144 responses so far ↓
David // November 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Dr. GP would like to get your medical opinion on this HPV business.
X-MAN // November 16, 2009 at 3:52 AM
off message – apologies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/nov/15/west-indies-cricket-team-cricket
Interesting interview with Viv Richards.
Crusoe // November 16, 2009 at 5:23 AM
Homosexuality, for whatever reason, is a choice. Certainly, there are those who clearly are born and develop differently than most, this may clearly impact their choice as a ‘natural’ choice.
Nevertheless, regardless of source, this becomes a matter of their personal right vs societal demands.
Surely, as long as this can be seen as not impacting negatively on society per se, why should a person not have a choice of their lifestyle, generally and specifically?
I personally have deep reservations in ’selecting’ any particular group and labelling their ways as wrong, whether they be of any ethnic or religious origin or simply a person of ‘different’ lifestyle choices.
You see, once one starts ’selecting’ groups and labelling, this creates a dangerous atmosphere of bigotry, hatred and witchhunting.
Who is next then on the ‘ist’?
No, we must come from a position that seeks to include persons of alternate lifestyles, as fellow human beings.
It is one’s behaviour to others that counts, one’s contribution to society that guides how one should be treated.
There can be no other yardstick but this.
If one does not wish to approach this issue with an open mind, we could done the discussion right now and go home.
Personally, I will treat people as individuals, as to how they interact with me as a person, as to their own value system, their integrity and honesty.
Finally, you reference Jamaica in the article.
We all know the reputation has for being homophobic.
Gosh knows where it comes from. Is it a case of ‘doth protest too much’?
Then again, Barbados has always been known to be a more tolerant and open minded society than Jamaica.
At least on the surface. Bajans will let you ‘get on bad’ at Crop Over, but talk about yuh behind closed doors.
Bajans wont pelt rocks, but will lickmout that same evening.
True?
Amused // November 16, 2009 at 6:03 AM
Crusoe // November 16, 2009 at 5:23 AM. Amen. Well put. I agree. Ef the en hurting you, lef duh loan. It is not your business, unless they choose to involve you in it. And then you have the right to say yes, or no.
As for Jamaica, you are right. Too much protest. Nuff batty boys there, including the ones in government that got wives (although some might call them “beards”).
As for Jamaica’s “zero tolerance”, it will find out that all the major industrial nations that Jamaica depends on for financial handouts have a “zero tolerance” for their “zero tolerance” takes the form of “hate crime” legislation.
So, it is far better to do as successive governments of Barbados have done – keep the buggery laws so as not to offend those who might be offended, but don’t enforce them because (a) you would have to apply them against certain members of parliament, and (b) against, maybe, some of your own relatives. This is pragmatism at its best – and, for once, I agree that we maintain the status quo.
I offer this little bit from the London Telegraph that may be of interest. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6574238/Lesbians-make-better-parents-says-senior-parenting-official.html
Any inoculation that will help to keep people healthy and no matter what age, ought to be administered – and particularly in a place like Barbados where there is no reliable data on HIV/AIDS, simply because people too fraid to get tested or come forward, due largely to the negative backlash than might ensue. At least, if you are inoculating all, then there is room for anonymity. But it will not address the enormous number of undiagnosed and undeclared cases of HIV/AIDS that already exist in Barbados – or Jamaica, for that matter.
It is also worth remembering that much religeous dogma and practices (like the Jewish/Arab not eating pork) arose, not because these creatures created by God were actually unclean, but because of the lack of refridgeration and proper storage facilities. So, religeon has, throughout history (until now) incorporated health and other safeguards for practical, non-religeous reasons aimed at the well-being of mankind.
We are faced with a medical situation worldwide and it ought to be religeon that carries out its traditional, pragmatic role. But these days, the religeous pundits are too busy enriching themselves by pandering to the prejudices of their congregational paymasters to follow the clear direction provided by their predecessors. Far better, they think, to enforce rules and dogma of no relevance today, than follow an example. Sad!
As for pork, well I doubt there is a Bajan alive who would not resist with every fibre of their being any attempt to remove from them their pork chops. Or what bout puddin n souse?
GOP // November 16, 2009 at 6:59 AM
In December of 2008 the UN General Assembly presented a declaration against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Only St. Lucia in the Caribbean has signed against this declaration.
I wonder where our leaders lie on homosexuality in Barbados.
Take a look at the following link:
http://trivester.com/christian-news/world/americas/caribbean/barbados/homosexuality/nov2009/
peltdownman // November 16, 2009 at 7:51 AM
“The members of the BU family who have been with us from our early days know the interest we have shown in homosexuality”
___________________________
Hmmmm! That speaks volumes!
David // November 16, 2009 at 7:58 AM
@Peltdownman
Is this BU attracting another label?
peltdownman // November 16, 2009 at 8:14 AM
BU, I really don’t know. What I do know is that there is definitely something unhealthy about your blog’s rabid interest in homosexuality. At worst it is hate-mongering, and at best it is pandering to uninformed prejudices. I am definitely with Crusoe on this one.
kiki // November 16, 2009 at 8:21 AM
what people do in bed is their own business not society’s
Anonymous // November 16, 2009 at 8:25 AM
HPV is often (one might even say “most often”) transmitted by heterosexual sex. Having the HPV vaccination is simply smart and has nothing to do with one’s sexuality.
Linking the HPV vaccination with homosexuality is simply an irrelevant red herring.
Anonymous // November 16, 2009 at 8:50 AM
The HPV vaccine has only been developed for women and is hard to detect in men. While there is in development a vaccine for men, there is no known date as tow when it will be available and how testing in men will be carried out as it is not the same for women.
John Walcott // November 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Why are we giving the homos so much prominence.
David // November 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM
@peltdownman
You are entitled to your view. Interestingly we heard similar sentiments when BU raised concerns about immigration, race relations and the like. BU does not condoned the barbaric behaviour of Jamaicans when dealing with the subject of homosexuality but the silence which occurs in Barbados and is only discussed in lunch rooms and other places in whispered tones does not make us any better. Let us confront the issue to reach some middle ground.
Zoe // November 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM
As a Christian, I do not hate, despise nor fear ‘Homosexuals’ anymore than I hate adulterers, fornicators, or muderers, or for that matter any other sinner, as we are all ’sinners’ either Saved by God’s grace, or not saved, it is a choice either way.
However, in recent decades the Homosexual Agenda in America, a very well organized platform from which they speak, has a clear well defined strategy of ‘deception’ based on refocusing the issue from a ‘moral’ one to that of ‘human rights’ and it would be folly not to believe that here in B’dos, that strong advocates for this ‘human rights’ facade like Peter Wickham et al are not working along these lines with their counterparts in North America.
The four stages that homosexual activists have taken in the United States toward thir goal of unbridled sexual behaviour, and silencing of the Church? That has led to the ‘moral’ demise of a culture, are as follows:
1. The Community Establishment Stage.
In this stage, a group of like-minded individuals (homosexual activists) who practice such lifestyles of sinful behaviour, discover each other and start to play a larger role in society. They start to feel empowered.
2. The Organization Stage.
In this stage, the group now feels empowered and start to get organized and develop a game plan for ‘legitimizing’ their behaviour in society.
3. The Mobilization Stage.
The group starts to pool together all of its resources. That develop a ‘common’ language and strategy for presenting their case to the public. They reframe the issue, taking it out of the ‘moral’ realm, and present it as a ‘human rights’ issue. Those who oppose their arguments are deemed “hateful” or “intolerant” toward those who are “different” even though the groups only *identification* is that of a chosen sexual behaviour.
4. The Legitimization Stage.
Once the issue has been redefined from a moral absolute to an individual choice, society starts to be reprogrammed that the arguments of the group are valid, and therefore special *privileges* from previous “injustices” and for affirmation of the behaviour occur.
In America and some other countries, we are at stage 4 and are at the eleventh hour with regard to homosexual activism, and religious freedom. The homosexual activists have the ball, as it were, on the ten-yard line, and it is first and goal.
While this is the stage at which homosexual activists have reached in North America and some other countries, let us not forget what Mia Mottley attempted to do in this regard, and was shot down by the majority of Barbadians, and as Owen Authur, said, ‘…she has being mortally wounded….give her a brake…”
The underlying purpose, agenda of these homoxesual activists, is to *erase* all religious and moral values from our society, and to 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, of the majority of Americans, Barbadians et al.
In short, they accuse those who disagree with their lifestyles, as being ‘intolerant’ when in fact, they are vehemently *intolerant* toward the majority of citizens, because we don’t want their ‘value neutral’ ‘value free’ so-called human rights, to become law, thus changing what marriage IS, between a ‘man/woman’ as Almight God did NOT create ‘Adam and Steve’ He created Adam and Eve!
We, must therefore be very careful, in understanding the sinister, deeper agenda of these homosexual activists, especially those who are able to articualte their cause, under the subtle veneer of so-called *human rights*
David // November 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM
@Zoe
Given your religious bent how do you explain divisions with the Church ordaining homosexuals? This act certainly validates a position which is contra to yours expressed above. In other words are you prepared to accept we live in a pluralistic society and holding fast to a position rooted in religion will not reconcile the issues?.
Technician // November 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM
The homosexual activists have the ball, as it were, on the ten-yard line, and it is first and goal.
…and this is why we, as concerned adults should be BLITZING !!
Negroman // November 16, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I tend to agree with Peltdown Man.I do not understand why BU continues to have these post on homosexuality.That is a subject that should never be discuss on the best Barbados blog.Leave that despicable,anti-life disgusting habit to the race that created & love to do it,the immoral,bulling Europeans.
Homosexuality is anti-African and we of African ancestry should never be discussing a despicable act such as homosexuality.
Leave homosexuality to the originators of that act,the bulling Europeans who love to have sex with little boys and who have their man – boy sex clubs.
POOPERTALLIAN // November 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Any bullers or wick-kers in here ?
Tell us how it feels to be antiiman ; anti-woman
Jack Bowman // November 16, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Likelihood that someone will say anything sensible for the rest of this thread: approximately zero.
That’s partly because of concern that, even anonymously, some doofus with a God-obsession or a “wasn’t-it-so-much-better-in-the-old days” obsession is going to use vulgarity to accuse you of being something you’re not. Clear as day.
The dull and the straw men are always with us …
Quoting David: “[T]he silence which occurs in Barbados and is only discussed in lunch rooms and other places in whispered tones does not make us any better [than Jamaicans]. Let us confront the issue to reach some middle ground.”
Okay. Here’s some middle ground. Some people, such as myself, like to have sex with people who have a different kind of reproductive apparatus. Some other people like to have sex with people who have the same kind of reproductive apparatus.
That’s middle ground. End of any need for discussion. Deal with it.
Amused // November 16, 2009 at 1:53 PM
David, it is clear and always has been what your personal opinion of homosexuality is….and you are entitled to it. It is ALSO clear that you have advocated the finding of a means of understanding and coexistence, which has clearly been missed by your detractors. My understanding of what you have always said is, “I don’t agree, but I want to understand and coexist”. Anyone who does not acknowledge your right to disagree and the magnaminity that makes you want to understand and coexist, has serious problems and an agenda that defies reason. Pay absolutely no attention to them – no one else does – including people in the “gay” world.
Dennis Johnson // November 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Taken from the Jamaica Observer:
Beenie yanked from NZ show following gay pressure
Monday Musings
with Yasmin
Monday, November 16, 2009
Following headlines over the weekend that gay lobby groups in New Zealand were presuring the promoters of music festival, Big Day Out, to pull Beenie Man from the line-up, and subsequent defence of their decision to use him as the only reggae act, the promoters have now backpedalled and have yanked the deejay from the concert.
Beenie Man… yanked from line-up for music festival Big Day Out
Internet reports say that New Zealand MP Kevin Hague was among those objecting to the inclusion of the King of the Dancehall based on his anti-gay lyrics. Hague noted that hate-mongering is not welcome in New Zealand, and reportedly urged the Big Day Out to uninvite Beenie.
“Music is a powerful shaper of culture, values, attitudes and behaviour,” said Hague. “Music that denigrates gay men and lesbians in the most extreme way imaginable sends some very powerful signals both to young gay and lesbian people but also to their peers. It is not true that ’sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’.
“Hate speech like that of Beenie Man gives permission to prejudice and discrimination and creates it where it didn’t previously exist. It blights and diminishes the lives of all who are exposed to it, most particularly young lesbian and gay people who suffer violence, harassment, lowered self-esteem and all the consequent health and social problems.”
Gay reaction stemmed from a song recorded by the deejay in which he says, “I’m dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays.”
The promoters had said in a previous release that they were aware of Beenie Man’s controversial past, but he had renounced those feelings and was now promoting “peaceful and humanistic values”.
However, a release posted yesterday said, “The depth of feeling and hurt amongst these groups has convinced us that for us to proceed with his Big Day Out appearances was, and would continue to be, divisive among our audience members and would mar the enjoyment of the event for many.”
Beenie Man, as is the norm, could not be reached for comment.
The sad part about this is that it’s not just Beenie who has lost out, it’s the music. This is a lost opportunity to promote reggae/dancehall in a major way and would no doubt have been a big boost – financially and otherwise – for Beenie Man himself. The fact is that there must have been big demand for this artiste for the promoters to have included him in a line-up with names such as Lily Allen, Muse, Eskimo Joe, The Mars Volta, Calvin Harris, Lisa Mitchell, the Horrors, and others. Between January 15 and 31, the Big Day Out will be held in Perth, Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne and the Gold Coast, and according to the concert’s website, many of the venues are already sold out.
Alex Fergusson // November 16, 2009 at 2:34 PM
And as an excuse, given its inability to manage the economy and put Barbadians to work, David Thompson seeks to blame the educational system for not creating entrepreneurs.
But while he is doing that, more and more Barbadians are coming to the same conclusion.
They are saying that whenever the DLP says anything that makes sense, it is extracted from the BLP’s manifesto or the same National Strategic Plan 2006-2025 that the DLP refused to debate when it was laid it the House or it is something that President Obama has said.
Turn to page 6 and 7 of the DLP’s 2008 Manifesto to see why the DLP now talks about enterprise creation and entrepreneurship.
B.I.G DICK // November 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM
homosexuality represents a pre-occupation with sex
sex is for procreation; pleasure is not the main focus.
indiscipline pushes the sex/pleasure principle to the apex
B.I.G DICK // November 16, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I might not know everything
but I know some things
One thing that I know is that
The more you learn , the less you know
michael // November 16, 2009 at 3:44 PM
For our thoughts to be taken away from the task at hand, which is,how can we get our leaders to lead Bim in a way that will benefit all the people especially Afro bajans we are talking about Bullers & wickers this is a distraction …Zoe is right,check the world population how many normal people are they how many deviants are they,Elton John was not stopped from performing in T&T but Beenie man has been stopped from performing, if you are black you must be stopped but if you are white you are harmless,this whole thing is a white man agenda we as black people has been suffering for centuries and it has not stopped but the gay lobby has got their agenda to the UN in less than 30 years does this not tell us some thing
Bonny Peppa // November 16, 2009 at 4:03 PM
B.I.G DICK
H.O.W. BIG??
Adrian Hinds // November 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Oh lord, It would appear from these postings, and many from other forums that bajans are social conservatives. I have also gathered that Bajans seem to be, at the personal level, fiscally conservatives. Who of our poltical class has gone beyond labeling themselves as a socialist democrat, to bodly declare themselves to be liberal? who? and what does it mean?
Jack Bowman // November 16, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Quoting the always fantastically hilarious and deeply insightful Bonny Peppa, fount of endless wisdom, a true comic, always deeply funny, not in any way a profoundly dull dispstick:
“B.I.G DICK
H.O.W. BIG??”
How funny can a person be? That made me laugh so much that I stopped.
Perhaps later I’ll respond to the semic-comical subliterate racist bigot Negroman. Perhaps not.
David // November 16, 2009 at 5:20 PM
For those accusing BU of inciting the population by fanning the issue of homosexuality let us be clear. It does not matter what BU thinks, what matters as Adrian alluded to is the conservative posture by mainstream Bajans on this issue and others. If all groups must coexist peacefully on the little rock some serious discussion needs to peltdown man.
For those who feel the homosexual issue is a distraction you need to wheel and come again. Barbadians will have to decide very soon, in about two years, what mirror image we want to project in our leaders.
Jack Bowman // November 16, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Quoting David, evidently a maestro at debate and always a stylist of gorgeous prose:
“For those accusing BU of inciting the population by fanning the issue of homosexuality let us be clear.”
Yes. Please, David, be CLEAR. Who exactly on this thread has accused BU of “inciting the population by fanning the issue of homosexuality”? Who? Please give one anonymous name. One. Give one, please, or grow the f**k up, even if you think it’s too late for you to grow up. Give it a try.
And if you can’t do that, can’t you at least take a class in basic English grammar somewhere?
Jack Bowman // November 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Quoting Zoe: “As a Christian, I …”
I assume that was where everyone stopped reading. Right there.
Anonymous // November 16, 2009 at 6:11 PM
So David, now the agenda becomes clear, once again. This is really just an assault on Mia Mottley, cleverly disguised as a general discussion about homosexuality.
Jack, as always, love your posts.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 6:17 PM
The complex origins of human behaviour are always good areas for study. New research looks at the effect of chemicals that may cause ‘effeminate behaviour’, http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#1eLmfq/wellness.blogs.time.com/2009/11/16/can-plastic-chemicals-cause-effeminate-behavior-in-boys//. This current study suggests that, not only does prenatal exposure to these common chemicals impact testosterone production, but it may also have longer term influence on gender identity and play behaviors as children grow up.
ac // November 16, 2009 at 7:27 PM
@Dennis Jones.
If my memory serves me right Homosexuality has been in civilisation back from bibical times and that was before all of the man made chemicals .
To clarify my point Sodom and Gommorah was such a city
Now in todays society we are still arguing about homosexuality which maybe genetically.
rohan // November 16, 2009 at 7:27 PM
LOL @ Jack Bowman..haha
ac // November 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM
@ Bonny Peppa
I think B.G.Dick might be packing a WEENIE
Ha ha———————————————-
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM
@ac, I’m not sure what you are calling ‘civilization’, but what we now call homosexuality has been around for a good few centuries, recorded for a couple of thousand years, and often with not a European near the scene.
But, I did not mention homosexuality when citing the research, merely that “The complex origins of human behaviour are always good areas for study.” I mentioned effeminate behaviour, which is not the same thing as homosexuality.
I was not meant to be a red herring, though some will follow it where it does not lead.
Apollo Y. Hyacinth // November 16, 2009 at 7:46 PM
What about Denis Lowe? Anyone heard him at Digicel’s BlackBerry launch the other night? He was saying how the phone jockeys were so handsome, strong and well-equipped! I thought Shelly Williams was going to pee herself, especially when he tried too late correcting himself. You hear he get lock out of his place in chancery lane? He had to beg for a chance to retrieve his clothes, someone needs to get to the bottom of where all his money goes. It seems Denis’ finances are on the downlow or very brown, if you know what I mean?
Bonny Peppa // November 16, 2009 at 8:11 PM
ac
I feel so too but hate to hurt a fella’s ego.
Jack Ass Bowman
‘I assume that was where everybody…..”
I tried my best not to laugh but that was hilarious.
Gotta hand it ta ya…………regretttably.
Ya id’jit.
Zoe // November 16, 2009 at 8:13 PM
David, Regarding the first part of your question, “Given your religious bent how do you explain division with the Church ordaining homosexuals.”
First, that section of the World wide Anglican church in America, who ordained that homosexual priest, Robinson, I think his name is, most certainly do NOT Biblically, Scripturally, nor theologically, constitute being recognized as ‘part’ of the true Church of Jesus Christ, they are *blatant* apostates, as even within their own communion of fellowship, there IS strong disagreement on this ordination, which is a *flagrant* disgraceful, scandalous, outright rejection, of what is clearly, and emphatically, condemned in God’s Word, both in the Old and New Testament Scriptures.
“Therefore, God also gave them up to *uncleanness* in the *lusts* of their hearts, to dishonour their *bodies* among themselves.”
“Who exchanged the truth of God for the *lie*, and worshipped and served the creature, rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
“For this reason God gave them up to *vile* passions. For even their *women* exchanged the natural use (heterosexual) for what IS AGAINST NATURE.” (Lebianism)
“Likewise also the men leaving the natural use (heterosexual) of the woman, *burned* in their *lust* for one another, men with men (homosexuality) committing what IS *shameful* and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge. God gave them over to a *debased* mind, to do those things which are not fitting. Being filled with unrighteousness, *sexual immorality* wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, *haters* of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscering, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful, who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who *practice* such things are deserving of death, not only do the same, but also *approve* of those who practice them.” (Rom. 1: 24- 32) emphasis added.
Any so-called ‘church’ masqurading as Christians, who fly into the face of Almighty God, and His Word, the Bible, contemptuously, and falgrantly defying God’s clear and emphatic denounciation of ‘homosexual’ and ‘lesbian’ relationships, IS in for His judgment sooner or later.
Regarding our society being a pluralistic one, this is not the point David, from the OT era, after SIN entered the human race, all societies have being pluralistic, BUT, this does not mean Almighty God approves of it.
Barbados has always being a pluralistic society, BUT, before the advent of this blatant Homosexual agenda, such behaviour, as wrong as it has always being, WAS not sought to be imposed on us by a change of Law, it was done quietly, though always sinful and disguisting, in privacy.
Now, we have a force of a different nature, these reprobate minds, are marching, demanding that their ‘vile’ wicked lifestyles, MUST be given rights,
so-called ‘human rights’ a LIE, fostered by rampant propaganda, seeking to have our laws changed, so they can walk down the streets, in front of our children, hugging and kissing one another, is this what we want our boys and girls to be openly exposed to in our society, and this IS their agenda, and it does not stop there, it goes even more deviant than this.
In some parts of North America, they want rights, to teach little boys and girls about, *fisting* how they do this to each other, don’t be fooled, this IS all part of their evil agenda.
IF, we once open the door through legislation, to accept homosexuality, as they want it, under so-called ‘human rights’ gay marriage, etc, etc, it will set a precedent in law, that will run wild in having to meet all of the other disguisting, immoral, deviant things they want imposed on society.
The historic stability of our society, socially, morally, politically and otherwise were built on our religious/moral value principles, in spite of all our inherent failures, it nevertheless, was, and to some extent, still is, the stabilizing force, guide for our rational, moral compass, which the rabid homosexual activists want outlawed, and their ‘value free’ value neutral’ debased lifestyles to replace it.
If a man/woman, want to engage in this God condemned filth, in their own privacy, the present law gives that that right. BUT, to extend their agenda as it really is, IS something entirely different.
ac // November 16, 2009 at 9:01 PM
@ Dennis Jones
AS usual you are always good at skirting the issue .Never willing to be specific on your point . In other words straddling the fence. For once let me know what Denise Jones really thinks on any topic instead of hiding behind somepersons theory.
The ” red herring “makes my point.
Vox // November 16, 2009 at 9:05 PM
GOP // November 16, 2009 at 6:59 AM
In December of 2008 the UN General Assembly presented a declaration against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Only St. Lucia in the Caribbean has signed against this declaration.
…………………………………………………………
B’dos has same percentage of hmosexuals as countries around the world. No more no less. Did GOP conduct a scientific survey? Guess not. GOP are you ST.Lucian? Have you gone to Gros Islet on Friday nights. Gay men in drag all over the place.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 9:13 PM
@ac, when one has a discussion or a debate, how one lets views be known is quite personal. Mine is clear, but maybe not to you, which is fine. One does not have to convince others and there is no voting during the process, so what would ‘knowing’ views really do? If your belief is that by sharing my views others may change theirs, then I’m not convinced. What is clear is that people tend to display bias once they think they have determined someone’s view.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 9:15 PM
@ac, I should have added that debate is about offering information that others may find useful in determining their views, which is what I have done. The ‘red herring’ is only for those who do not think that a difference exists between being men being effeminate and being homosexual.
Crusoe // November 16, 2009 at 9:32 PM
ac
WERE you trying to be funny, or did it just happen (bearing in mind the blog title) when you said ‘AS usual you are always good at skirting the issue .Never willing to be specific on your point . In other words straddling the fence.’
Crusoe // November 16, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Looks to be a bit of Freud there?
kingdom child // November 16, 2009 at 9:35 PM
It is not natural and unGodly .God will judge such an act just as he did with sodom and like every sin. Opposites go together, it is natural.[so God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. God bless them and said to them, be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it.] Homosexuality is not fruitful and cannot bring an increase. It is dead wrong and against the will of God for mankind. Homosexuality is an act were people want to please their own evil desire and not God’s desire will for mankind. It is out of order and thus must be judge.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM
@Crusoe, I must admit that moving from a male to female name for apparently merely skirting the issues seemed like a dressing down. I’ll live with it, though.
Adrian Hinds // November 16, 2009 at 11:48 PM
One of the influential voices of the 1960s, C.Wright Mills, say in The Power Elite that privileged groups participate in a “higher immorality” in their ability to marginalize as deviant those in society who become troublesome. For Mills and his follwers, society’s elites use their wealth, prestige and power to sustain their privilege and ensure that their intereste become national policy.
If in the past it was wealthy and powerful elites who labeled others as deviant, this perogative has now been sized by influential interest or advocacy groups. Women’s groups and gay rights organizations, for instance, now have the ability to silence speech by those with whom they disagree.
Deviance is being rediscovered by ordinary people who have suffered the real world consquences of the academic elite’s rejection of the concept. Those whose communities have been broken by failed welfare policies, or whose families have fallen apart as a result of teenage pregnancy or divorce, are now speaking out about the moral chaos that is destroying their neighborhoods, their schools and their families. The pendulum continues to swing; where it will stop is not clear
For more than thirty years, the evolving politics of deviance has demanded that we adopt standards of conduct that come from human will and desire as mediated by advocacy groups, rather than those that derive from reason and commons sense. Social theorist Philip Jenkins has proposed that the current social contructionist environment can be likened to a market place in which activist compete to win buyers for their products. As marketers well know, success in convincing buyers that they really want to purchase a new product , especially when they are perfectly happy with the one they already have, can be achieved only through creative packaging of the product. The packaging of ideas involves a complex system of communication aimed at reaching people on an emotional level, convincing them that they want a redefinition of deviance even though they never realized that they needed it.
The politics of deviance
Anne Hendershott
The book explores the culture war between traditional and postmodern definitions of deviance. Its central argument is that moral good or moral harm can come to a society according to how this conflict is resolved. The author does not believe that all behaviours are created equal. And no conception of what is morally right exist without a corresponding idea of what is morally wrong. The distinction between these —- that is, the bondaries of deviance —– must not be established by politically powerfull advocates through savvy marketing techniques. The author argues that we must reject the marketplace model. and instead draw from nature, reason and common sense to define what is deviant and reaffirm the moral ties that bind us together.
Remember this as you experience the marketing blitz starring Mia Mottley coming to the media near you, in the not to distant future.
David // November 17, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Our agenda is clear, it is Barbadians have to decide how we are going to threat with the issue of homosexuality. Mottley is a key actor given her public position on the matter and having to be saved by Arthur. Since she is the PM in waiting we can discuss it now or during next election. One thing is for sure, it is an issue which will not go away easily.
sad very sad // November 17, 2009 at 5:31 AM
SAD VERY SAD
David // November 17, 2009 at 6:38 AM
Did anyone read the piece posted by Dennis Johnson. There is a consequence at individual and probably country level for not toeing the line on this issue.
Comments anyone?
Adrian Hinds // November 17, 2009 at 10:13 AM
David: Anne Hendershott provided us with a statement of fact
[If in the past it was wealthy and powerful elites who labeled others as deviant, this perogative has now been sized by influential interest or advocacy groups.
Women’s groups and gay rights organizations, for instance, now have the ability to silence speech by those with whom they disagree. ]
In many countries the wealthy and powerful elites are also members of the womens and gay rights movement.
Dennis Johnson article provides evidence that proves Anne Hendershotts Statement of Fact.
Global Voices Online » Barbados, Jamaica: The Politics of Homosexuality // November 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM
[...] a long way to go regarding how as a country we want to deal with the issue of homosexuality”: Barbados Underground says “it would be unfortunate for some if we wait until the next general election” to [...]
michael // November 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM
What are you suggesting? that we accept the European morals and norms for the 30 pieces silver (few Dollars)a society is more than that, societies has been built on the cohesion of families,not just on families of the 20th 21th century but before that and this is on a heterosexual life stile,deviants will always be with us but we can not allow them to lead our thoughts,The north Americans and western Europeans has an agenda that is not compatible with the rest of the world but they want to make it the norm,we in bim need to be aware of what they want to force on our society,we should focus on good leadership(heterosexual)every thing else is a distraction
I know that we will still get the tourist if they know that Barbados is a welcoming place for the family
Zoe // November 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM
How Did We Get Here?
“If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of *sodomy* to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread; we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamfulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then…national weakness, for which remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth…To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men (women) who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.”
“Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a *nation* has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much secrecy…and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and after some hundred years it will no longer be the same…powerful country it is at present.”
-Sir John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, 1814.
In 1983, 30 percent of Americans said that they knew someone who was homosexual. By 2000, that figure had skyrocketed to 73 percent. In 1985, only 40 percent of those polled said they were comfortable around individuals who practice homosexual behaviour. By 2000, that number had risen to 60 percent. Also, in 1985, 90 percent of Americans said they would be upset if their son or daughter announced they were homosexual. By 2000, that figure stood at just 37 percent.
The subtle process of gradualism is deadly. Most morally persuaded people, at first, reject this deviant lifestyle outright. Then, they begin to be somewhat passive in what they formally knew to be wrong, by not speaking out against it. Then they tolerate it, then acceptance, becomes embracing, what was inherently known to be a vile, vice!
The homosexual activists, had a long-term strategy implimented well in advance, to transform America’s perception of homosexuality, and of those who oppose homosexual behaviour.
As Gene Edward Veith wrote about the tremendous gains made by the homosexual activist movement: “Homosexuality used to be considered a vice; now even those it makes uncomfortable now must avow – as Scinfeld episode – ‘not that there’s anything wrong with it,’ while those who think there is something wrong with it are considered to have the vice of intolerance.
The reason is a well-thought-out strategy that was devised in part by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen and publicized in two publications; a 1987 article titled, “The Overhauling of Straight America” and a 1989 book titled “The Ball.” When one reads both of these works, one sees how radical homosexual activists have implimented the strategy laid out in these publications almost to the letter.
The homosexual activists laid out a six-point strategy to radically change America’s perception of homosexual behaviour. Their six points were:
1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
2. Potray gays as *victims*, not agressive challengers.
3. Give homosexual protectors a ‘just’ cause.
4. Make gays look good.
5. Make the victimizers look bad.
6. Solicit funds; the buck stops here (i.e., get coporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause),
Needless to say, this deviant, subtle strategy, has worked extremely well for the homosexual activist in America.
Here at home in B’dos, though nothing as brazen as in America, nevertheless, homosexuals have come out of the closet over the last twenty years or so, openly displaying themselves in shows, blantant homosexual ‘whores’ at night, offering themselves to those men, single and married, to fullfil their abominable lusts, for a price.
And, a former high ranking government official, tried to push this ‘vice’ down our throats, hoping to be able to legislate this abomination into law.
Thank God, there are still the majority of Bajans, who said NO! with a loud voice!
It is one thing to have this practice, now obviously much more widespread than before, with many men and women, both single and married, plus teenagers in school being enticed into this vice ; BUT, for any government to want to, or even consider going the so-called lawful route, be assured, this will bring the judgment of Almighty God that’s already hanging our our heads, even faster, to the ultimate demise our of land.
One of America’s deadliest mistakes was embracing and tolerating this wicked, evil, debased subtle agenda of the homosexual activists, and giving them, so-called ‘human rights’ on par with Husbands and Wives, men and women!
Be warned Barbados!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM
@Zoe, whatever your views on homosexualtity, I suggest you get a few things straightened out on sodomy. When I saw the laws (and I do not think they’ve changed in last 2 years) they did not define it as a male-male act; quite on the contrary-that is a subset and heterosexual activities that many people may see as ‘normal’ are covered too.
You can also look at case law in the Caribbean too, and even smile at how one Jamaican MP, who opposes homosexuality very vehemently was earning his money as a lawyer defending a man for sodomizing his niece. Ernie Smith MP is a good lawyer and he got the man off.
kiki // November 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM
in the old days gay meant happy..
Adrian Hinds // November 17, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Barbadians need to ask themselves if they are socially liberal or conservative.
They must find out what are the social ideological leanings of their leaders and potential leaders.
They must recall who endorse the bashment culture.
who spoke out against it,
They must recall who criticise a fellow member of the political class for always being in church.
They must recall who supports legislation that is concidered friendly to Homsexuality. Not that there is anything wrong with it. lol!
They must recall who the person is with the idea that supporting and strengthening the traditional family unit (the building block of society) is to encourage men to take a horn.
The signs are clear, the intent is known, you would be a fool to ignore them and endorse the person, persons and or groups that are representative of the above, which collectively you may not.
@Zoe:
It is possible to say that America made a mistake in embracing the intial arguments of the gay lobby, but as Anne Hendershott wrote in her book “The politics of Deviance”
“Deviance is being rediscovered by ordinary people who have suffered the real world consquences of the academic elite’s rejection of it.”
America is now saying no:
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote.
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATIVELY FORCE ACCEPTANCE ON THIS ISSUE.
Jack Bowman // November 17, 2009 at 4:12 PM
@ Zoe
Dear Z,
Among members of the not-a-moron community, it is normally considered good form to quote the sources of one’s writing – rather, say, than simply stealing phrases wholesale in large blocks from wingnut websites, stitching them together, and then pretending that the finished product is one’s own work.
Quoting Zoe: “Owen Authur, said, ‘…she has being mortally wounded….give her a brake’…” That made me laugh out loud. Thank you. I had my car serviced recently by an excellent guy, and if you need his number I can give it to you. He can give you a break on a good brake.
Quoting Zoe: “they accuse those who disagree with their lifestyles, as being ‘intolerant’.”
As a rampant heterosexual, Zoe, I would never accuse you of being intolerant. I can simply sit here and read your stuff and know, without accusation, that you are an idiot.
Negroman // November 17, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Jack Bowman
You are the English expert on this blog always being critical of the usage of the English Language by the contributors to this blog.If we are sub-literate,unintelligent,racist bigots,why come here and have a debate with persons you consider to be down right idiots.
Jack Bowman,a person of your intellect with a great command of the English language you should be contributing more meaningful and thought provoking contributions rather than nit-pick at grammatical errors many of us bloggers make with our limited knowledge of the English Language
Bloggers such as Dennis Jones,Chris Halsall & few others even though many of the others bloggers including Your Truly do not necessarily share the same views of those bloggers,they postings are very enlightening and I have gained great knowledge on many subject matters on this blog from Dennis Jones (Living In Barbados) & Chris Halsall.Unfortunately I cannot say the same thing about the contributions from you Jack Bowman.
Jack Bowman if we are that dumb please make your contributions on the other blogs that cater to people of your high intellect and leave us the sub-literate,racist bigots on BU alone.Jack Bowman that is my humble plea to a scum like you.
David // November 17, 2009 at 5:09 PM
To support the point which Adrian et al has been making it is interesting to note the reaction by parents to a book about two male penguins. The book based on a BBC report has garnered the most ban requests.
Crusoe // November 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM
And here playing ‘devil’s advocate’ (no intent on that word, other than the traditional sense)…
Some above criticise the European ‘ways’ etc as being a causation of alternate lifestyle.
But, surely marriage etc is a European tradition, whereas most other nations lived in the tribal settings?
Eunuchs etc were well known in Eastern and African societies, witnessed by none other than Cleopatra’s own Court.
Even today in India, there are professional eunuchs, developed from young boys grabbed or sold from villages.
This is not a sudden occurrence, this is an age old happening.
Now to my own opinion. While yes, we guard our young against those who would turn them away from our own expected standards, some more thought must go into reasons and the underlying societal relationships on this issue, rather than mere ostracism and spewing of intolerance.
I repeat, when one is intolerant towards any sector of society, be aware that one day, someone may be intolerant towards you.
What is even more surprising, is that by now we all should have learnt that particular lesson, being in a position to look back at history, particularly the last 500 years, with all of its trials and tribulations for all races and creeds.
Sadly, I can see that a true Age of Aquarius is far from reality, given the tunnel vision and bigotry that still exists on a widespread basis.
Then too, either as a part of this or compounding this, are those who are under the misconception that their path in life is the only path.
This is quite against the Natural Law and has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Adrian Hinds // November 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Negroman, you must understand the Jack Bowman needs us anti-spellers, and grammaticunts more than we need him. He is but a language maven. Would that it were, we all could spell and use proper grammer in our contributions; why he would wither away from a lack of purpose. lol!
Jack Bowman // November 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Negoman I Must apolojiz, you are write and everythink I so sorry,
Negroman,you is a greatthinker and Africa,is, great, and everything.
So Negroman,what I say to you isd you cool and all,that. All agree,with,all,yousay because you a real,thinker.MY apologees.
Anonymous // November 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Africa is a fascinating place. Many of our preconceptions about this large and varied continent may be more European in origin than African. Check out the following:
http://saharanvibe.blogspot.com/2007/02/wodaabe-beauty-ceremony.html
Jack Bowman // November 17, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Quoting Mr Hinds: “we all could spell and use proper grammer in our contributions; why he would wither away from a lack of purpose. lol!”
Well, that’s not exactly true, Mr Hinds. As long as there are comically witless dullards still writing “lol” as if they were unusually tedious American children, my mission will always be ahead of me.
If you can’t write properly, you can’t think properly. Bad news for you, clearly, but try to do your best to deal with it. Okay?
And can I please say: “lol”. Thank you. It’s so laugh-out-loud moronic that it makes me smile. Thanks.
Zoe // November 17, 2009 at 6:36 PM
@Jack Bowman, Your opinion of me is utterly useless, and void of any significance whatsoever!
You are a ‘classic’ example of the following:
“The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your *eye* is good, your whole body will be full of *light*. But if your eye (Bowman!) is *bad* your whole body will be FULL of *DARKNESS* If therefore (Bowman!) the light that IS in you is *DARKNESS* how great IS that DARKNESS.” (Matt. 6:22) emphasis added.
Carry on smartly, Bowman, in the pit of your own self-imposed DARKNESS!
Zoe // November 17, 2009 at 7:22 PM
@Dennis Jones, The point is, that the idea of changing our present laws re sodomy, yes, which cover, as you rightly say, both the heterosexual activity, and the male-male act, was the thrust of a former government official, with the obvious intent to ‘liberalize’ those ’sodomy’ laws, thereby subtly opening the ‘door’ for a much more homosexual/lesbian oriented society, than presently obtain under our current laws.
Ruel Daniels // November 17, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Homosexuality is not an issue of gender. It is not an issue of social differences. It is an issue of sexual differences, plain and simple.
What about if a person is born wih a predisposition to have sex with pubescent boys or girls. This is a social and legal taboo in our society to the same degree that same gender copulaton is a social taboo.
Yes, what adults do in the confines of their privace is their business. In addition, the fact that a man wishes to asume the affectations of a female is not a justification for us to be intolerant of him as a person. However, where he crosses the line is when he attempts to equate the un-natural act of same gender copulation with the natural process of reproduction. You cannot by a function of choice just decide that apertures and organs that are constructed for particular natural functions must be recognized differently because of your individual erotic predisposition.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 18, 2009 at 4:02 AM
@ Ruel Daniels // November 17, 2009 at 9:45 PM “You cannot by a function of choice just decide that apertures and organs that are constructed for particular natural functions must be recognized differently because of your individual erotic predisposition.” [That's broadly what the existing sodomy law covers--I presume you're familiar with it--and it does not distinguish who is involved: man, woman, humans with animals, too.]
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 18, 2009 at 4:07 AM
@ Zoe // November 17, 2009 at 7:22 PM You seem to draw lines where they do not exist. The current sodomy law is comprehensive covering same sex relations (both genders), hetero- relations, and bestial ones to (as was shown in a recent case of boys with sheep in Barbados).
You’ve drawn a conclusion from a hypothetical change about what ‘liberalising’ the law would mean, but we have no proposal to consider.
I have no problem with your being against homosexuality: that’s your personal choice. I just find it hard that you argue strongly or stridently from thin air.
Crusoe // November 18, 2009 at 4:53 AM
Ruel Daniels, your post of Nov 17, 9.45pm,
was a finely played straight drive. Good point, well said.
If I may, you got in place by acknowledging where intolerance could not be accepted, then you played your shot.
This is where proper discussion without abuse can be exemplified.
Well done.
…………..
On the issue of taboo. As with most laws, most taboo’s etc are usually to protect the ways of society and in some aspects, individuals themselves, developed over years of learning practically.
Some may come across as mere superstition, but in some way, could have been seeded because of ‘elders’ keeping their people within ‘boundaries’ for one reason or another.
This is where things become difficult, when we now have to interpret freedom of choice and tolerance, as these relate to acceptable boundaries that we place as valuable to our development and where we wish society to go.
We are necessarily creating artifical but acceptably necessary boundaries.
For example, in history it was in all civilisations, common for a man to take a very young wife, just reached puberty.
We, and my opinion is ‘rightly so’, abhor this.
Why? Because we have come to place value on women and a girl’s right to education and personal development and fulfillment.
Probably, the discussion on this aspect of societal relationships is a matter for extensive discussion and analysis, I cannot see it being easily addressed on one blog, except by personal choices and views.
michael // November 18, 2009 at 8:17 AM
cruso
read the bible it is older than European written history
Zoe // November 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
@Dennis Jones, “You’ve drawn a conclusion from a hypothetical change about what ‘liberalising’ the law would mean, but we have no proposal to consider…I find it hard that you argue strongly or stridently from thin air.”
When Mia Mottley commissioned the study done by Pro. Mickey Waldron, re giving prisoners ‘condoms’ and other related issues, albiet to control the spread of HIV/AIDS, which would have necessitated a change of the sodomy laws, in order to grant such ‘legal’ status to prisoners, to ’sodomize’ each other, there was a ‘hue and cry’ across the nation, where Dr. Carol Jacobs attempted to hold town-hall meetings, hoping to get Waldons report more acceptable to the general populace, the voice of people, writing to the press, call-in radio programs, and the town-hall meetings, were so angry at this report by Waldron, which Mottley was hoping would find favor with the people, thus find its way into law; BUT, it was put on the back-burner, until a more appropriate time!
This, is hardly arguing from thin air!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM
@Zoe, but Ms. Mottley and her party are not the government and there is no proposal on the table now. I’m no lawyer but supplying condoms to male prisoners could co-exist with no change in the sodomy law. You recognize that the law is being broken and if caught then prisoners do more time if convicted. That seems similar to having condoms on general sale and knowing that they are bought and used by unfaithful/adulterous heterosexual couples or by under aged persons together or with adults (itself involving a stipulated crime).
Adrian Hinds // November 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Zoe good for you. The Jamaican LIB has gone from accusing you of arguing out of thing air to a clumsy conclusion on condom supply and current law.
During the firestorm directed at Mia I never once heard anyone suggest anything similar.
I personaly believe her opinions had little to do with the welfare of prisoners, the overcrowding that in part may have had a role to play in the burning of Glendairy, under her watch suggest otherwise.
I believe she was more likely to be guided by her liberal views.
This is why I maintain that Bajans need to determine if they are social conservatives or liberals and if their political representatives, leader and potential leaders are on the same page with them.
Zoe // November 18, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Some further insightful facts re Overlooking the Core Problems of Structural Incompatibility as it relates to homosexual behaviour, by Dr. Robert A.J. Gagon.
“Contrary to Peterson and Hedlund, the first and most significant problem with homosexual practice is not its typical promiscuity. Rather, it is the structurally incompatible character of merging two people who are already of the same sex. This is an erotic attraction for what one already is as a sexual being and a denial of the reality that a man and woman are the two and only complementary halves of a sexual whole. This sexual attraction is narcissistic, if one realizes that it is for the distinctive features of one’s own sex and self-deceptive if one does not realize it. Increasing the commitment to such a bond merely increases the commitment to a form of union that is contrary to nature, and, from a scriptural perspective, contrary to God’s revealed will in creation…The primary problem with homosexual behaviour is no more its typical promiscuity than is the potential for birth defects the primary problem with adult incest or jealousy the primary problem with polyamorous unions. A long-term homosexual unuion merely regularizes the deception of viewing and treating a person of the same sex as one’s appropriate sexual counterpart.”
“Modern secular societies, to say nothing of religious ones, retain the notion that sexual relationships must meet special structural criteria; that is, the objective facets of congruity or complementarity that are gounded in nature or physical makeup, and transcend positive disposition of the heart or mind and even positive behaviors. Those include considerations of consanguinity ( i.e., no sexual relations with close blood relations), numbers (i.e., a limitation to one parter at a time), age (no sex with children), and species (no sex with animals). There is a need for multiple leves of structural correspondence between sexual parters.”
“Biological sex (gender) has a just claim to being a foundational criterion for valid sexual unions, the basis or analogical model for others. If commited multiple-parter inions and incestuous unions are unacceptable, then commited homosexual unions should be even more problematic. For the twoness of human sexual relations, on which a prohibition of polygamy is based, is predicated on the deep structure of two sexes. Moreover, the structural requirement of complementary difference, on which a prohibition of incest is based, is more keenly disclosed in sexual differentiation than blood unrelatedness. Dissolving a two-sex prerequisite for valid sexual unions strikes at the heart of whether there should be any requirement of deep structural compatibility between prospective sexual partners that takes its cue from the material structures of creation and transcends the issue of personal affections. For at the heart of all sexual practice is the sex (gender) of the participants. Because there are two sexes and because two sexes are structurally complementary at many levels, a given individual, by virture of belonging to only one of these two sexes, interacts as only one incomplete part of a two-part sexual whole. On the crucial level of sex (gender), one’s structural complement or counterpart can only be a person of the other sex. There is no escapting the rational basis in nature for this conclusion. When one perceives union with a sexual same as an avenue for completion of the sexual self, the integrity of one’s sex is implicitly denied.”
(Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture, A Response to Peterson and Hedlund’s ‘Heterosexism, Homosexual Health, and the Church’
By Robert A.J Gagnon, Ph.D, Associate Professor of New Testament Pittsburg Theological Seminary, 2005.
An extremely valid, sensible, rational perspective, based on the factual structure of man/woman, and the compatibility of such union, as intended by our Creator.
Anonymous // November 18, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Adrian Hinds, I don’t know why you keep referring to Dennis Jones as “The Jamaican”. At least he actually lives in Barbados and no doubt has a better grasp on day to day life and opinions in Barbados than you.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM
@anon:
Of course you know why. He is Jamaican.
The Jamaican LIB did not seem aware of the reasoning with which Mia Mottley sought that particular change in law. Granted, he may not have been “living in Barbados” at the time, but neither was I, yet I knew. So much for being on the ground, and or having a better a grasp of day to day life.
btw: what we do today in Barbados could very well have a history behind it that escapes the Jamaican LIB.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 2:13 PM
@Adrian Hinds, I am very aware of the reasoning that MIGHT have been in Ms. Mottley’s mind in the past. But what it was it’s not material now. As I said, “Ms. Mottley and her party are not the government and there is no proposal on the table now”. She leads a very small opposition party. So, to me, her view on the issue and her reasoning are not that relevant. If at the next election she is the leader of a party and then we can see what her position may be on this and other issues. If her views are sufficiently disliked she wont win, so what’s the worry? The world is full of people who have ideas that we may feel are unpalatable, but if they are not in a position to implement them are we going to chase them all down?
Obviously, being on the ground only gives a certain perspective on local situations–literally–as you surely know. But it also can obscure your objectivity.
Now, I could equally argue that the way that Jamaicans and Jamaican society think and deal with homosexuality puts them in a position quite different to Barbadians and with views that some would say are much clearer.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Going into an election the leader of either BLP or DLP will emerge as the Prime Minister in waiting, and the potentially the LOTO in waiting.
The PM has so much authority that he/she can be liken unto a dictator while in office. Although accountable to parliament; if his cabinet which is largely made up of existing parliamentarians he/she can have so large a cabinet that parliament cannot exercise authority over it. This was the case with the last constituted parliament under the BLP government.
The PM gives and takes regarding appointments to ministerial positions, where there are monetary and other incentives for recipients to consider.
The PM office and the Cabinet it controls are largely responsible for the executive functions of government and for determining what legislation comes to parliament for a vote into law. Bi partisan committees of parliament are not everyday entities in Barbados parliament.
What would we think of a PM who did not have their stamp of authority of the cabinet they are suppose to have power and control over? Maybe I should ask what could happen.
Therefore, you have a potential leader of government or leader of the opposition who has declared adherence to an ideology that the majority of Electors may not subscribe to, should they not pay attention to where this person now sits, and be mindful of where they are likely to be sitting given their views.
It matters who the political leader of a political party is at all times.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM
@Adrian Hinds, I would not dispute that your “It matters who the political leader of a political party is at all times.” is valid. But you put that up after a piece saying how powerful the PM of the day is, not about how powerful the Leader of the Opposition is. Do you forget that one party has just come from 14 years in Opposition? That’s a long time for ideas to lay fallow.
In the existing Constitutional setting, no PM can put through a legal change single handedly, so if he or she does not have the majority of Parliament on side, the laws wont change. If the majority of Parliament go that way then we have to accept that as their expressing the people’s will. So, my thought would be that you need to check first what is the disposition of the current government, and come election time the disposition of each candidate.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Only the existing parliamentarians can choose the leader of the BLP and potential Prime Minister of Barbados.
Currently the entire general membership of the DLP chooses their Leader and potential Prime Minister of Barbados.
In Westminster types government which we have in Barbados, patronage is an accepted tool to gaining loyalty, from which a leader or potential leader can project power.
Is it not easier to “gain” loyalty from eight or nine parliamentarians as oppose to several thousand general members of a party?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
@Adrian Hinds, the BLP can change its rules (as had the DLP).
It is near universal that patronage gains loyalty, not unique to Westminster based systems, and not unique to politics, either. Surely, the USA, where you live, gives you enough examples of that.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 4:35 PM
1: Mia Mottley first referred to the Sodomy laws, and homosexuality in prison in response to a question. A question that some say was planted by Owen, and to which in her defense she said she was only answering a question.
2: Rather than let it die there. She then attempt to force the issue by way of the Mickey Walrond report.
3: That, further intensified the Anti-Mia rhetoric, With Owen calling on Barbadians to give her a break.
4: Probably sensing prolong if not permanent damage to her reputation, she retreated to her original position of only answering a question. Adding to this she also said that no government should ever legislate no matter what, without the consent of the majority. She also added that this issue will have to be address at some point.
She is the political leader of a major political party in Barbados one election away from having the authority, and power to influence her social views into law.
It is true that the concept of being first amongst your equals can check the power of a PM. It has in the past with Sandiford, and I believe we are seeing it again with the delay in legislating ITAL.
But the power of PM in the hands of a person at the head of a party where demonstrated best practices of patronage as seen via “the politics of inclusion” are plentiful. Loyalty of fellow parliamentarians can be purchase and that has shown to be enough for them to sign off on the peronal initiatives of the leader, “in whom they are well please”.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
@Adrian Hinds, the BLP can change its rules (as had the DLP).
————————————————–
ha ha ha Such a change is not in Mia Mottley’s interest, nor of those parliamentarians who voted for her, or the leadership council who approved of her, or of those stalwarts who never liked the current popular alternative to Mia.
But this is what Owen Arthur said must be address. He said the BLP has to address how they pick leaders, and if the general membership do not make known their wish and do so in a forceful manner, the BLP will never turn over or share its queen and king making apparatus to a bunch of lowly BLP members. Never.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM
@Adrian Hinds, you are postulating a desired outcome. Ms Mottley is NOT “one election away from having the authority, and power to influence her social views into law” in the same way that over 14 years the leader of the DLP was not one election away from gaining power. For those with apocalyptic notions, they may wish to fill 2012 with more drama, but it’s a stretch.
Your points to the BLP positioning raise again the spectre that Ms. Mottley was being ’set up’ for a fall, but so far it has not happened. Which just goes to show that in politics, many outcomes are possible, and no certainties exist.
Done.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:58 PM
@Adrian Hinds, whether a change of rules is in Ms. Mottley’s interest is only part of the matter. The BLP parliamentary leader is not the leader of the BLP: Mr. George Payne is Chair of the BLP Executive Committee. The BLP is also clearly not a one person party.
If you want to speculate, do so. You could even postulate what it may take to see a break up of the party. I mention that merely because that might resonate with you in the USA as some in the Republican Party who may have presidential ambitions have recently spoken openly about how good it may be for a ‘third’ party to be formed (listen to some of Ms. Palin’s recent interviews).
David // November 19, 2009 at 5:03 PM
@Adrian
This is our read of the situation. Arthur is currently keeping his options open. The move by Mottley to opening put the leadership issue to bed for now was a smart move knowing that Arthur is not ready to make the move at this time; the DLP popularity is still distubingly too high even in a recession. Be assured Arthur will test the wind down the road, the key will be when the polls show a dip in DLP popularity. Arthur obviously doesn’t fancy working very hard to regain the reigns. He does not have the zeal to do so. Interesting times ahead. Thompson would rather face Mottley for sure.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 6:31 PM
@Adrian Hinds, whether a change of rules is in Ms. Mottley’s interest is only part of the matter. The BLP parliamentary leader is not the leader of the BLP: Mr. George Payne is Chair of the BLP Executive Committee. The BLP is also clearly not a one person party.
————————————————
No body pays much attention to the general sec. chair or other similar positions unless it is filled by the political leader.
How the political leader is chosen is the issue. A political party is indeed, not a one man show. Neither should it be an eight man parliamentary team show, nor a too few leadership committee show. Were that the case, the PEP, PDC and others would have a much better change of gaining a single seat in parliament.
The party is its entire membership and this is the missing voice in who elects the political leader of the BLP. No real legitimacy can be had or sustain from what transpired to give Mia her position.
Mia Mottley gain the Leadership of her party the very same way that Owen did the difference being while the general membership although not having a direct say endorse it, nevertheless now they don’t and may want to have that direct say now and into the future.
Clearly Thompson has more legitimacy in terms of numbers from his party than Mia does. Why sould Barbados Electors vote enmasse for the party whose political leader its membership are not “warmed” on?
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 8:29 PM
David your assessment is sound, but don’t you think Arthur’s current national appeal while inpart due to his 14 years at the helm, remains as strong as it is due to the economics of the day and his training as an economist?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 8:56 PM
@ Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 6:31 PM
You seem to have rationalised Ms. Mottley away as a potential political power, so why then spend time worrying about her ideas?
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 9:41 PM
what does rationalizing have to do with the reality of elective politics in our first past the post two party system?????
worry is not a good word to use. But would you like me to stop analyzing?
Are you part of the planning committee for the Mia show coming to the Barbadian media sometime before the next election?
I got quite a bit of what I call mia-morabilia” collected over the years, that could be useful to her or Thompy. :)
Zoe // November 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Regarding the radical ‘homosexual’ agenda, coming from North America, and seeking to infiltrate our Caribbean region, the following is taken, in part, from a very well informed Jamaican, who wrote in June 20, 2008:
“The Homosexual Agenda and the Caribbean, and the de-Christianisers Coming from North America.”
“Yes, Bible believing Christians have, often falsely, but sometimes with cause, been accused of being hostile and unsympathetic to those facing homosexual temptation, or caught up in related habits.”
“Therefore, however imperfect Christians are, to be truthful and corrective, but concerned for people, whoever they are.”
“Over the past several weeks, (ca June, 2008) several incidents, such as the BBC Hardtalk interview with PM Bruce Golding of Jamaica, that alerted us to a rising surge to ‘normalise’ homosexuality in law, policy, media, public opinion and education in the Caribbean.”
“Around that same time, a related call came through PM Dr. Denzil Douglas of St. Kitts, in the name of helping to address HIV/AIDS. But, there is always more to such stories than meets the eye.”
‘The Agenda’
“An April 3, 2008 account in the Jamaica Star, ‘Gays give Jamaica Deadline.’ tells us…one individual who has been involved with Jamaica AIDS Support for Life and the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays since 1998 and is now in Canada seeking asylum along with his partner, said, “Its not just that we are singling out Jamaica and it will be only about Jamaica, but as soon as the issue in Jamaica have been addressed, then we’ll move on to another country. We’re not only looking at Jamaica, but also the *region* the 11 other countries that have *sodomy* laws on their books.”
“In short, the HOMOSEXUAlists have the *Caricom* region in their sights.”
“What is being Demanded”
“They want the Government of Jamaica to produce ‘public service announcements denouncing homophobic/transphobic violence. They are also calling for a national homophobic/transphobic *education* campaign, and the repeal of the *buggery* laws and other legislation that further stigmatize, discriminate and criminalize consensual same-sex acts.”
“They are also calling for government policy to protect human rights and inclusion of ’sexual’ orientation’ as a ground for non-discrimination in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Additionally, they want to see a focus at the Canada-CARICOM 2008 Summit to include human rights for ‘Lesbians, Gays, bi-Sexuals, and Trans-identified people.”
“And, if we don’t fall in line,…the groups [ Egale Canada, and Metropolitan Community Churches [a homosexualist 'church'] promise to make a public announcement on may 17, the ‘International Day Against Homophobia’ calling for, among other things, a Canadian tourism *boycott* on Jamaica and a boycott of goods and services here…”
“The groups are planning to make an international call for the ‘Lesbian, Gay, bi-Sexual, and transsexual community to support the boycott and suspension of Jamaica from the Commonwealth for human rights.”
“[NB: There is no gov't sanctioned persecution of homosexuals in Jamaica; though...sadly, there have been occasional instances of mob violence, similar to what rountinely happens with Goat thieves caught in the act. And the JFLAG activist MUST know that!]”
“If Sodomy is decriminalized”
“On evidence of what is now going on in the US and Canada, a demand would soon go out to legalise so-called ’same-sex marriage,’ and to write that into the education system.”
“Husband and wife, Mom and Dad, etc., would become forbidden words in the classrooms [as is happening right now in California].”
“Activists would then use the ‘law’ to silence those who object as attacking legal, duly declared ‘human rights’ of homosexuals,[To refuse to rent to, print invitations for a photograph the 'wedding' of a same-sex 'couple' will also be to expose oneself to human rights law.]”
“In particular, to teach what Leviticus 18, or Romans 1 or I Cor 6: 9-11, etc., say about homosexual conduct, would be deemed criminal ‘hate speech’ [A Pastor in Sweden was sentenced to goal for preaching such texts.]”
‘The Underlying Strategy’
“As David Kirpelian of WND sums up in his “Marketing of Evil”
“The sophiticated strategy [Marketing Professionals] Kirk and Madsen lay out for changing the way Americans think about homosexuality, boast three phases: ‘Desensitization’ ‘Jamming’ and ‘Conversion.’
NOTICE.
“For instance above, the Government of Jamaica has been slandered as if it were sponsoring anti-homosexual persecution.”
“Never mind, that those making the false accusation know or should know better.”
The salient point is, that no one in government in Jamaica, has attempted, to call for what Mottley did in B’dos, they would be *mad* to even think such an idea in Jamaica, BUT, the seriousness of the *intent* of the HOMOSEXUAList, agenda, not just in the US and Canada, is a world-wide strategy, which in very subtle ways, is already been talked about at the United Nations, and is very much a part of the ‘New World Order’ One World Government, yes, it is all there in the multiple thousands of pages, that many are not familar with, as it is tedious reading!
Zoe // November 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM
The Family Under Attack
“The storm that will break over America after but a single vote *legalizes* gay marriage will surely be a moment of decisive social reckoning. In the wake of the first legalization, the battle over gay marriage will be characterized by rapidly escalating confrontation, followed by a radical, nationwide resolution…As soon as even a single state legalizes same-sex marriage, the nation will be plunged into a furious legal, political, and cultural struggle. The bitter and ongoing polarization to even an exceedingly liberal state like Vermont is a clear foreshadowing of the conflict to come. As legal and political battles over traveling couples spread from state-to-state, the chaos will multiply and the courts, already inclined to mandate same-sex marriage, will grow increasingly receptive to arguments that the Full Faith and Credit Clause demands national gay marriage. And the even stronger arguments for nationally mandated gay marriage under the Constitution’s equal-protection clause will also find favor in the courts.”
-Stanley Kurtz, writing in National Review. ( The Homosexual Agenda, Exposing The Principle Threat To Religious Freedom Today, p.89).
The following quotes taken from the above source, emphatically reveal that the Homosexaulists Agenda in America and elsewhere, is to dethrone our God Ordained sanctity of Marriage, as defined historically by our creator, between one man and one woman, the very bedrock upon which any stable, rational, well-balanced society has prospered, and raised its children into meaningful, productive citizens of any country, which cannot be refuted with any soundness of of mind.
“What Stanley Kurtz warned about happened on November 18, 2003. When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that same-sex couples have a newly discovered legal right to ‘marry,’ the court radically redefined marriage for the citizens of the Commonwealth – ignoring nearly four hundred years of state and national history and stripping marriage of its core purpose of uniting men and women as the basic unit of the family. *One vote has changed the course of history.* America’s moment of reckoning had come.” (Ibid., p.89).
“Why is this battle so important? Because it goes to the very heart of God’s plan for marriage and the family. When anyone tinkers with that plan, the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of future generations is put at severe risk.”
“For instance, in Europe a generation of children are growing up with no idea of what a traditional family is like. In countries such as Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark, it has been decades since many children have known what it is like to live in a traditional family with a mother and a father. More than half of the children in Europe are born to unwed mothers. In Sweden, 54 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. In Norway, the figure is 49 percent, in Denmark, 46 percent, and in Iceland, it is over 65 percent. And, in America, 26.7 percent of children born to white mothers, and 68.8 percent of children born to black mothers, are out of wedlock. Over 43 percent of all children in America will live in a single-parent home sometime in their childhood.” (Ibid., p.90).
“Marriage and family are under attack by homosexual activists and their allies, both in America and internationally. At a conference at the University of London called ‘Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: A Conference on National European and International Law,” one of the main themes of discussion was whether marriage should exist at all. The attendees laid out strategies to circumvent each nations’s democratic process via the judicial system to force governments to sanction and accept same-sex marriage. There was also discussion about ultimately *abolishing* marriage so adults could be free to pursue any sexual relationship they want with no legal restrictions whatsoever.”
“Part of Europe have already proceeded well down the road to the abolition of marriage. Same-sex marriage is already legal in the Netherlands, and many other European countries have some sort of formal recognition of same-sex couples. In January 2003, Belgium joined the Netherland to officially recognize same-sex marriage.”
“In Norway, the nation’s finance minister, Per-Kristian Foss, *married* his homosexual partner via a ‘partnership,’ which means that they have ‘almost the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples’ but not the title.”
‘In Germany, a similar partership law was passed. The first lesbian couple to take advantage of the law, Angelika and Gudrum Pannier, dressed themselves in black tuxedos and white bow ties. They exchanged rings and ended their ceremony with a kiss. Angelika said, ‘It is a great honor to be Germany’s first lesbian couple to have a legal partership. It is very exciting. It is also very important to have my family beside us on this great step for civil and human rights…There is still a lot more to do, but this is the first step.” (Ibid., p. 91).
“The first step is just the precusor to wholesale destruction of marriage.”
“What has all of this to do with gay marriage? Everything. The argument over gay marriage is only incidentally and secondarily an argument over marriage,. Unless a government is sufficiently powerful and disdainful of religion to crush the objections of the local churches – and few governments are – gay marriage will turn out in practice to mean the creation of an *alternative* form of legal coupling that will be available to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Gay marriage, as the French are are vividly demonstrating, does NOT extend martial rights; its *abolishes* marriage and puts a new, flimsier institution in its place.”
“The gay marriage argument is only the latest round in an argument over marriage and the family that began some 35 years ago. It *pits* defenders of marriage against those who condemn it as stultifying and oppressive. It *pits* the wishes of adults against the needs of *children*, the urgings of the *self* against the ‘obligations’ of *family*. As such, the argument is a much more evenly matched *battle* than a gay-straight fight would ever be. The *battle* has been lost in France and Scandinavia. It is well on the way to being lost in Britain and Canada. And it is very much in danger of being lost in the United States.” (Ibid., p.93).
‘Radical homosexual activists recognize that domestic-partner policies, civil unions, and so forth will eventually destroy the *institution* of male-female marriage. Chris Crain, writing in the homosexual newspaper the ‘New York Blade’, acknowledged this: ‘In the English-speaking world, the *faux* marriages have been called ‘domestic parterships.’ In france, they are called ‘Pacte civil de solidarite,’ or PACS…The effect on ‘traditional marriage’ has been dramatic. In France, where PACS first became available in 1990, some 14,000 couples signed up the first year, and almost half of them heterosexual…Back in the States, many heterosexual couples are also choosing domestic partership [DP] over marriage for many of the same reasons.”
“Radical homosexual activists readily acknowledge that *redefinition* of marriage IS just a *tool* in their greater agenda to *reorder* society. While they will not admit it, *children* are just pawns to be used as they strive for total acceptance of their behavior. Consider the quote from Evan Wolfson, former president of the Lamba Legal Defense and Education Fund, a leading lobbying and legal action group for homosexual marriage. ‘We can win the freedom to marry….We can *sieze* the terms of the debate, tell our *diverse* stories, engage the nongay persuadable public, enlist allies, work the courts, and the legislatures in several states, and achieve a legal *breakthrough* within five years. I’m talking about not just any legal breakthrough, but an actual change in the law of at least one state, ending discrimination in civil marriage and permitting same-sex couples to lawfully wed. This just won’t be a change in the law either; it will be a change in *society*. For if we do it right, the struggle to win freedom to marry will bring much more along the way.” emphasis added. (Ibid., p.94)
“George W. Dent Jr., writing in ‘The Journal of Law and Politics’ writes that once same-sex marriage is affirmed, then *other* forms of *marriage* will quickly be affirmed as well, such as polygamy, endogamy (the marriage of blood relatives), beastiality, and child marriage. In fact, the policy guide of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls fo the legalization of *polygamy* stating, ‘The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of *plural* marriage violate constitutional protections of *freedom* of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.”
Hear this: “For the children, it makes no difference whether their parents are married or not. Traditional *family* values are *not* important to us anymore. They are something we do research on like a *fossil*” -Ebba Wilt-Brattstroem, Stockholm University, Professor of comparative literature.
“Once marriage is redefined for same-sex partners, it opens the *Pandora’s* box to be redefined for any assortment of individuals. After all, if two men or two women have a right to be married, why not two men and three women, or two men, one woman, and a dog and a chimpanzee?” (Ibid., p. 94) emphasis added.
Many in our part of the world, obviously don’t have a clue, regarding what the Homosexualist Agenda is really all about, and the inroads they have already made in a number of countries, as cited above; OR, are also part of this subtle, devious, wicked, evil agenda, to eradicate our historic, God given family *unit* of Father and Mother, which is already under severe stress from all of the other *ills* that plague us daily!
kiki // November 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Motherless Children
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/motherless-children/
B.I.G DICK // November 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM
ac // November 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM
@ Bonny Peppa
I think B.G.Dick might be packing a WEENIE
Ha ha———————————————-
——————————————-
There is always a pre-occupation with size but usually many people cant handle size and often complain .
Remember a giant size WEENIE might seem small to a giant but extremely large to a dwarf.
B.I.G DICK // November 20, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Homosexuality is an abomination, Why would a man want to forego the pleasure of a warm moist and juicy orifice such as is found on a female to go and dabble in shit ? Tell me nuh ! Tell B.I.G DICK
B.I.G DICK // November 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM
OK
I have given up
BULL all you want
kiki // November 20, 2009 at 3:07 PM
getting so much resistance
from behind
Catch this Sound
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/catch-this-sound/
ac // November 20, 2009 at 6:48 PM
@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.
Pat // November 21, 2009 at 8:25 PM
@ 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!
ac // November 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM
@PAT
whatever makes you happi————– Ha Ha——————————
ac // November 21, 2009 at 8:45 PM
@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”.
Pat // November 21, 2009 at 11:23 PM
@ac
Dont waste your time on Zoe, we dont take fanaticism seriously. In fact, do what most do, scroll by.
Praetorious // November 22, 2009 at 12:16 AM
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.
michael // November 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM
@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
kiki // November 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM
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
Zoe // November 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM
@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.
Crusoe // November 22, 2009 at 3:54 PM
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.
Crusoe // November 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Merriam-Webster Online, definition of dogmatism,
”positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant”
Something to ponder on.
Pat // November 22, 2009 at 9:29 PM
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.
michael // November 23, 2009 at 6:52 AM
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
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados // November 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM
@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.
ac // November 23, 2009 at 6:47 PM
@michael
Weird conclusion you make between homosexuality and a flute.
I think you are ver confused to make such a comparison.
Pat // November 23, 2009 at 7:22 PM
@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.
ac // November 23, 2009 at 10:30 PM
@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”
ac // November 23, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Please ignore the above comment on the wrong page
Praetorious // November 24, 2009 at 12:25 AM
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.
Praetorious // November 24, 2009 at 12:29 AM
@ 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.
Anonymous // November 24, 2009 at 5:57 AM
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.
Praetorious // November 24, 2009 at 7:30 AM
@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.
Anonymous(2) // November 24, 2009 at 8:17 AM
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.
Amused // November 24, 2009 at 1:09 PM
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.
michael // November 24, 2009 at 5:26 PM
@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
Zoe // November 24, 2009 at 11:31 PM
@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!
Zoe // November 25, 2009 at 3:55 PM
@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!
Zoe // November 27, 2009 at 10:47 AM
@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!
Praetorious // November 27, 2009 at 1:28 PM
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
Anonymous(2) // November 27, 2009 at 6:20 PM
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.
kiki // November 27, 2009 at 6:38 PM
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
Zoe // November 27, 2009 at 9:02 PM
@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.
Amused // November 28, 2009 at 4:27 AM
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.
Crusoe // November 28, 2009 at 5:05 AM
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?
Anon // November 28, 2009 at 6:36 AM
@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.
David // November 28, 2009 at 7:47 AM
@Anon
The above is an interesting observation, care to elaborate? In does make a serious indictment on the medical profession and support services.
Dennis Jones // November 28, 2009 at 8:25 AM
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.
michael // November 28, 2009 at 10:39 AM
@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
Zoe // November 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM
@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.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados // November 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM
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.
Zoe // November 28, 2009 at 1:13 PM
@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?
Crusoe // November 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM
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.
michael // November 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM
@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