I am posting on behalf of William Skelton.
Your participation in a research project is requested. This study is seeking Gay men and Lesbian women, 18 years of age with either previous or current experience with Christian religion or spirituality. Although many of you are not Gay or Lesbian, you do have connections with individuals who are eligible for this study. Please, take a moment to forward this to your friends or if you are eligible take the survey. The title of the study is “The relationship Between Faith Maturity Development and Internalized Homonegativity”. The study is seeking information that will be useful in the fields of Psychology of Human Sexuality and the Psychology of Religion. The aims of the research are to examine internalized homonegativity and faith maturity. If you decide to participate in this research, you will be asked to do the following: Answer the questions on the following scales as appropriate: Reactions to Homosexuality Scale, the Lesbian Internalized Homonegativity Scale, the Faith Maturity Scale, and a Demographics Scale. The questionnaire is estimated to take no more than 30 minutes to complete.
http://www.psychsurveys.org/williamskelton/ihandfm
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study or your participation in the study, you may contact me, William Skelton by email at william.skelton@mymail.barry.edu.
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
No General Homosexual Prohibition in the Bible
Rev Earl Thames, in his letter to the Editor, states that Jesus Wasn't Mum on Homosexuality (http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120121/cleisure/cleisure2.html) in response to Henry Morgan's letter, Jesus Mum on Gays, So Why Aren't We? (http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120118/letters/letters8.html). I decided to write a response and submit it. It seems the papers don't like my writings so I haven't been published in awhile, if they decide to publish me this time, I'll be sure to tell you.
Below is my response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the debate over homosexuality, many read into Scripture what is not there, interpreting it to suit their message.
Rev. Thames and others assert that Christ referred to homosexuality generally, but the only way to justify such reference is to take Biblical passages out of context.
The sin of homosexuality referred to in Leviticus is not homosexuality in general as many would love us to blindly believe. The literal translation of the prohibition in Leviticus states: ‘And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman. It is an abomination’, the statement seems to condemn all forms of male same sex intercourse. This is where reading Scripture in context comes in play. The verses in Leviticus where written at a time when the children of Israel were in danger of falling to idolatry from the cultures of Egypt and Canaan.
Within the context that the ‘homosexual’ prohibition in Leviticus was written, it was in the idolatrous culture of Egypt and/or Canaan for men to have sexual intercourse with male priests as an act of worship. Women did not play part in this type of cultic worship practice, which explains why they are not mentioned.
Fornication, be it homosexual or heterosexual forms part of sexual immorality. However not all homosexuals are fornicators; committed monogamous relationships, which do not require the sanction of a state/country law, but are acceptable in God’s sight exist between homosexuals.
The condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 again refer to the practice within the context of idolatry. Furthermore verse 25 tells us why God did what He did in verse 26, yet it is often excluded from the quotation of the Romans prohibition.
The prohibitions against homosexuality do not operate in a vacuum, nor are they general. In almost all instances it is within the context of idolatry. Homosexuals are not condemned because they are homosexuals; rather, they like heterosexuals are sinners until they come into the fold of God.
It is time the Christian church stop misinterpreting and misrepresenting the Word of God and using it to keep persons out of the Kingdom of God, in Jeremiah 23: 1 and 2 we are told; “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!”“...Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done”.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller X
The following are letters to the editor, published in the Jamaican Gleaner
Shame On JLP For Mockery
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Why have I finally decided to vote for Portia Simpson Miller? Spiritually good people don't belittle others. Bad people do.
If the Jamaica Labour Party displayed a good spirit to others, they wouldn't be belittling anyone, especially a lady of our soil, culture, race and creed. I am really ashamed of the JLP's approach.
Portia Simpson Miller is being herself and being a good person. God doesn't love the criticism and He encourages us to walk in His footsteps.
This is why I cannot vote for a party that belittles anyone that resembles me.
H. MILLER
thetruthspeak@ovi.com
Issue:Keeping Out The Gays?
Homosexuals are people too
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Many Jamaicans are oblivious of the laws that prohibit homosexuals the rights that characterise them as human beings.
Most of you do not think about your rights, and they are frequently taken for granted. Also, numerous people have preconceived notions of how homosexuals behave. Attitudes toward homosexuality are overwhelmingly negative.
All I ask of you is to look around. Homosexuality is part of society. People, such as your neighbour, hairdresser, relatives, friends, and people you have known all your life, could be gay! Does that make them different?
Many people say that homosexuality is not natural. But I ask you, what is natural? They are a component of society, and we must grant them equal rights. Homosexuals face religious criticism and social injustice every day of their lives. So for the prime minister to be saying that his sentiment must be guided by the sentiment of Jamaica, that, essentially, is homophobic.
Some aspects of human identity are so fundamental that they should be left to each individual, free of all non-essential regulation, even when manifested in conduct. An individual should not be penalised personally or prohibited socially from enjoying basic rights and freedoms because of sexual orientation or the country he/she is from unless that person's behaviour inflicts harm on other people.
Government should provide basic rights, freedom, and justice to every person without regard to an individual's sexual orientation. Governments should offer to all citizens the civic rituals and arrangements that are offered to any citizen.
ALEX M. LODGE
alexlodge1992@yahoo.com
Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller Part IX
The following letter to the editor was published in the Jamaican Gleaner.
Christians Should Not Discriminate
THE EDITOR, Sir:
There is so much talk with regard to the 'don't ask, don't tell' statement made by the leader of the Opposition during last Tuesday's debate.
She was very specific. She said that she would not pry, and that she would make decisions based on ability. She also stated that she would review the buggery laws in consultation with the Jamaican people. That was a very diplomatic statement.
I am, however, stunned by the response from some among the body of Christ. These betray the very foundation of the Christian principles. We should not discriminate against any human being because of sexual preferences. We can debate the issue from now until judgement day, we cannot win, for all of us are sinners.
Many among us fornicate, commit adultery, steal, lie, we could go on and on. Even though we cannot understand the deviant sexual behaviour, let us acknowledge that we all have to account for our sins.
The million-dollar question is, how would Christ deal with the homosexual? He did not treat the lepers or the adulterous woman as outcasts. Let us pray for our brothers and sisters.
VERNA GORDON BINNS
theashton@cwjamaica.com
PO Box 123
Sunday, September 11, 2011
True colours? The Rev Al Miller speaks his mind
In an article in the Jamaica Gleaner Saturday edition, Rev. Al Miller "indicated that he would not be opposed to the idea of having dialogue about the issues of bigotry and intolerance within the society", it went on to say that Rev. Miller "would have to be satisfied with the principles that would guide those discussions", the entire article may be read here: Church Head Says He Is Open To Talks On Bigotry, Intolerance
After reading the article, and seeing Rev. Miller's specific demands for such dialogue to take place I commented saying: "As far as I see Al Miller will have this discussion when he will have his way. When will these people realise that Jamaica is a secular democratic society? That church and state are separate. And that you cannot dictate who and how other persons should love and tolerate based only on your religious views?"
Now, less than one month after that article, my fellow blogger at Gay Lesbian Bisexual Trans-gender & Queer Jamaica, brings to our attention Rev. Miller's remarks on his television program Word Power, that the, "gay lobby is using the guise of tolerance to get the nation to accept the “gay lifestyle”".
“Nothing is wrong with loving someone but disagreeing or disliking their lifestyle and the issue is the lifestyle we are not against...but we must recognize sin as sin,...what the gay agenda is about is wanting the society to accept the lifestyle as being right but they are using the guise of tolerance, of course we can be tolerant with the individual but we must have the right to be intolerant to a practice that is not right it is in the same vein as anyone who practices a lifestyle that is inconsistent with correct behaviour or good for a society".
After reading the article, and seeing Rev. Miller's specific demands for such dialogue to take place I commented saying: "As far as I see Al Miller will have this discussion when he will have his way. When will these people realise that Jamaica is a secular democratic society? That church and state are separate. And that you cannot dictate who and how other persons should love and tolerate based only on your religious views?"
Now, less than one month after that article, my fellow blogger at Gay Lesbian Bisexual Trans-gender & Queer Jamaica, brings to our attention Rev. Miller's remarks on his television program Word Power, that the, "gay lobby is using the guise of tolerance to get the nation to accept the “gay lifestyle”".
“Nothing is wrong with loving someone but disagreeing or disliking their lifestyle and the issue is the lifestyle we are not against...but we must recognize sin as sin,...what the gay agenda is about is wanting the society to accept the lifestyle as being right but they are using the guise of tolerance, of course we can be tolerant with the individual but we must have the right to be intolerant to a practice that is not right it is in the same vein as anyone who practices a lifestyle that is inconsistent with correct behaviour or good for a society".
To read the entire post, and the entirety of the remarks, please visit: Rev Al Miller says gay lobby is using the guise of tolerance to get the nation to accept the “gay lifestyle”
Dear reader, I ask you to draw your own conclusion; what do you think the Rev wants? An open dialogue in which both parties can come to a consensus as to how to move forward, while respecting the rights of all? Or a dialogue in which all parties will agree that GLBTQ persons ought not to have access to their basic rights and freedoms, since it is not in accordance with traditional Christian belief?
Monday, September 5, 2011
Atheist Vs Christian Morality: My Response
I really can't decided if this is a rant or not so, I've also placed this post on Jamaican GLBTQ Christian.
*****************************************************************************************
I am not surprised to see an atheist (Dr. Elthon Lowe) questioning the society’s firm footing in “Christian morality”. This blog post however is not so much about the letter written, but the comments that followed.
The intolerance of the Christians who responded to his article is not hidden. No I do not agree with atheist thought, what I do believe is that each of us is given free will. An atheist should be free to express his or her thought of how they view Christianity, isn’t that what freedom of speech is about?
Many Christians fear that their right to freedom of speech will be curtailed if ‘certain people’ are allowed to access and exercise their rights, yet they sometimes seem so disrespectful of other opinions and the rights of others to express such, for example mrs. parker commented on Dr. Lowe’s article saying, “I am so sorry that the gleaner took up space that could have been used for other more pressing and important things, and used it for this insignificant, stupid ideas of these people that don't know them selfI am so sorry that the gleaner took up space that could have been used for other more pressing and important things, and used it for this insignificant, stupid ideas of these people that don't know them self”.
What is it with many Christians? If you are speaking something that they don’t agree with they tell you to keep it to yourself because ‘the rest of us don’t want to hear it’, for example a commenter Machowan says, “I would hope the good doctor is not insinuating that we as christians are forcing our belief or values on him. We are fortunate enough to live in a country where we are free to believe or not to believe in any God at all. I will bet my bottom dollar you did not feel this way before you enter certain educational institution. Some of us tend to be cocky when we think we are a notch or two above the rest. You don't believe in the Father of creation, then keep that to your self, because you have no gospel to preach. Unless you are trying to convince yourself.” How does that stimulate conversation, how does that allow evangelism, how does that speak of the spirit of Christ in the Christian? It doesn’t.
No I’m not saying do not respond to his assertions, I am not saying do not contradict him, neither am I saying do not speak about your beliefs. I am saying encourage dialogue, have a conversation. I have met atheists, and agnostics some have rejected Christianity because it doesn’t make logical sense, some have rejected it because they have been beaten over the head with a stick to accept Christianity and some have seen the injustice and ruthlessness that Christianity can create. What happened to Love? No, not turning a blind eye and allowing that person to destroy themselves; rather, lovingly minister to such persons, reach out to them with compassion, sometimes if you listened to why they believe what they do, you overly righteous Christians would possibly learn something new, and learn a different way of evangelizing.
No I am not on the side of Dr. Lowe, I do not believe that we should, “Return morality to the human world into the hands of humans who can create and sustain it”; my gosh if morality were solely dependent on humanity’s thought’s there would still be injustice and in my opinion even chaos, for who’s version of morality would we follow? Morality can be influenced by religious (not only Christian) thought; it should be guided by our desire to protect those who may be harmed because of their inability to choose. My morality based on my religious belief should not be pushed down your throat, neither should someone else’s.
An interesting and almost borderline intolerant conversation rages on the website of the article and can be read here: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110904/letters/letters2.html
You can also read this post on: Jamaican GLBTQ Christian
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
I'm Happy for Rev Michelle Smith, however...
I have noticed with almost all stories of persons who have left the “homosexual lifestyle”, that their backgrounds are almost the same. However the many stories that are untold are those of persons from functional homes, little to no molestation, God-fearing Christians, educated, and contributing positively to society.
I am a lesbian God-fearing Christian; I was born in wedlock, and my parents still married, I grew up in a stable and functional home, I have always been surrounded by love. I did not grow up in a situation where I was deprived of something I needed, because of poverty.
As far as I can remember I was never molested as a child growing up. I have been attending church from before I was born and still do. I am an educated young lady working towards my Bachelors degree at the moment. I am a business owner, I contribute positively to this society, I am not and have never been involved in drug smuggling or selling, or any other form of illegal activity.
As a normal person growing up, I had my own struggles and had to go through the process of finding myself, everyone goes through that. The outcomes and the particular struggles are unique to the individual.
I didn’t have anyone around me to ‘influence’ my being a lesbian, or anyone who ‘promoted’ the ‘lesbian lifestyle’ to me. Oh contrary to that, if influence was what made someone straight or gay then I would have been straight, I only saw heterosexuality around me, and this ‘lifestyle’ was ‘promoted’ to me.
I have always felt that difference within me that almost all gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons will tell you they felt, for me it was from a very early age. No I didn’t feel like I was a man trapped in a woman’s body (that is, in my opinion more of a transgender issue). I did recognise that I was attracted to females not just on a friendship level but also physically and sexually. I was never introduced to lesbianism. I am not a scientist so I cannot say there is a gay gene, I can only say that from as early as I can remember I had these feelings and close to the end of high school I learnt the name that described my feelings.
My sexual assault didn’t make me a lesbian either. I knew I was a lesbian long before that happened but it is part of my history. I was sexually assaulted because I am a lesbian, yes it happens and there are real people who suffer from violence toward them because of their orientation.
The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community is part of society, and the same things that affect the larger society in general also affects us.
There are also heterosexual persons who live a life contrary to that which is natural to them, those persons are lost and those are persons who need help.
I am loved by God as the lesbian I am. No I am not perfect and God’s still working on me.
It is a shame that stories like these are not publicized and that persons like myself cannot appear on television to put a voice and face to the good happening right here, the upright people how are as regular as any heterosexual person and who many of you talk to everyday.
No one should be subjected to accepting another person’s beliefs and no one should be forced to change. I believe persons who have unwanted sexual attractions should be able to get help, but I also believe that persons who do not believe that they need change, should be free to express that and have public places that cater to families and adults who want to know and see that there are positive, spiritual, responsible, and God-fearing Christians in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community.
I am happy that Rev. Michelle Smith was able to leave a ‘lifestyle’ that was ‘demonic’ and "unacceptable” to her. No one should remain in such a situation if it is against their nature.
I am a lesbian God-fearing Christian; I was born in wedlock, and my parents still married, I grew up in a stable and functional home, I have always been surrounded by love. I did not grow up in a situation where I was deprived of something I needed, because of poverty.
As far as I can remember I was never molested as a child growing up. I have been attending church from before I was born and still do. I am an educated young lady working towards my Bachelors degree at the moment. I am a business owner, I contribute positively to this society, I am not and have never been involved in drug smuggling or selling, or any other form of illegal activity.
As a normal person growing up, I had my own struggles and had to go through the process of finding myself, everyone goes through that. The outcomes and the particular struggles are unique to the individual.
I didn’t have anyone around me to ‘influence’ my being a lesbian, or anyone who ‘promoted’ the ‘lesbian lifestyle’ to me. Oh contrary to that, if influence was what made someone straight or gay then I would have been straight, I only saw heterosexuality around me, and this ‘lifestyle’ was ‘promoted’ to me.
I have always felt that difference within me that almost all gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons will tell you they felt, for me it was from a very early age. No I didn’t feel like I was a man trapped in a woman’s body (that is, in my opinion more of a transgender issue). I did recognise that I was attracted to females not just on a friendship level but also physically and sexually. I was never introduced to lesbianism. I am not a scientist so I cannot say there is a gay gene, I can only say that from as early as I can remember I had these feelings and close to the end of high school I learnt the name that described my feelings.
My sexual assault didn’t make me a lesbian either. I knew I was a lesbian long before that happened but it is part of my history. I was sexually assaulted because I am a lesbian, yes it happens and there are real people who suffer from violence toward them because of their orientation.
The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community is part of society, and the same things that affect the larger society in general also affects us.
There are also heterosexual persons who live a life contrary to that which is natural to them, those persons are lost and those are persons who need help.
I am loved by God as the lesbian I am. No I am not perfect and God’s still working on me.
It is a shame that stories like these are not publicized and that persons like myself cannot appear on television to put a voice and face to the good happening right here, the upright people how are as regular as any heterosexual person and who many of you talk to everyday.
No one should be subjected to accepting another person’s beliefs and no one should be forced to change. I believe persons who have unwanted sexual attractions should be able to get help, but I also believe that persons who do not believe that they need change, should be free to express that and have public places that cater to families and adults who want to know and see that there are positive, spiritual, responsible, and God-fearing Christians in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community.
I am happy that Rev. Michelle Smith was able to leave a ‘lifestyle’ that was ‘demonic’ and "unacceptable” to her. No one should remain in such a situation if it is against their nature.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
1st National Survey of Attitudes and Perceptions to Same Sex Relationships (Jamaica)
The results of Jamaica's first ever national survey of attitudes and perceptions of Jamaicans towards homosexuality, was made released and available on J-FLAG's website today (May 17, 2011).
The research team which was headed by Professor Ian Boxill, found that the negative views of homosexuality tended to be greatest among males, non-university educated persons, listeners of mostly dancehall and reggae music and persons in the lower socio-economic groups.
The study showed 59% of respondents chose negative words to describe their feelings towards homosexuals, while 51% stated that they learnt of homosexuality at 14 years old and younger, through family and friends (32.9%) and media (31.3%) as the main sources of exposure.
The strongest objections to homosexuality were raised on religious grounds and the need to 'protect Jamaican society from changing its cultural practices for the worse'. 85% said they did not think homosexuality should be legally allowed between consenting adults, using the widely held misconception that it is illegal to be homosexual.
Interestingly, 30% agree that someone can be homosexual and Christian.
Echoing UNAIDS Executive Director, Mr Michel Sidibé, Dane Lewis, Executive Director of J-FLAG noted that “the rise in the number of reports to J-FLAG in the last three months has been significant" underscoring the reality of homophobia faced by many gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender Jamaicans.
With 49% believing that homosexuals experience genuine love and affection, like heterosexuals, in their intimate relationships, and 20% (though a significant minority) choosing positive words (e.g. tolerance and acceptance) when asked to describe their feelings towards homosexuals in spite of the prevailing climate of homophobia, the research offers some hope of movement towards tolerance in the coming months and years.
The research was conducted using a nationally representative sample of 1007 adults from 231 communities between October and November 2010. The survey was also supported by a qualitative study based on five focus groups conducted across the island between October 2010 and January 2011.
The research was commissioned by the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) with the support of AIDS Free World and Open Society Institute.
A final copy of the survey is available for reading online and/or for downloading at NATIONAL SURVEY OF ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF JAMAICANS TOWARDS SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Published Response to Peter Espeut
Hey readers as promised, here is the version that was published in the Gleaner.
It's reposted in it's entirety, and can be found at the main webpage which will also have the comments, you can find that by clicking on the name of the article.
Lesbians Do Have Morals!
Published: Saturday | April 16, 2011 17 Comments
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Peter Espeut, in his column 'The right to discriminate' (April 8), began his defence against the non-inclusion of a non-discrimination clause against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Jamaican population by drawing upon the fear of Jamaicans.
A church that does not condone homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism cannot, by any account, be forced to admit these persons into its clergy, as that would be an infringement on their rights. The church is a private body governed by its own rules; the same goes for schools employing openly LGBT persons.
Mr Espeut says that by including a clause of non-discrimination, it may cause "young people ... [to believe] that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles'." Why, Mr Espeut, would anyone choose to live a life that they have heard over and over will lead them to hell, a life that would endanger their life?
anything goes
I do not know, Mr Espeut, if you are saying that "anything goes" is the characteristic of LGBT persons, or if such persons are amoral. If that is what you are saying, may I ask you how many LGBT persons have you met outside the stereotypical profile many have of LGBT people? Let me introduce you to a lesbian who has a moral compass: me. I am a lesbian, a Christian, an overcomer of a sexual crime. I am not amoral, I have values, I have a concept of right and wrong, I have moral principles.
Get it right, Mr Espeut, all heterosexuals aren't party animals and promiscuous beings, neither are all lesbians, bisexuals, gays, and transgenders.
I am, etc.,
ALEXIS JARVIS
Lesbian Christian and Human
Rights Activist
Jarvis@p2102442.pubip.peer1.net
It's reposted in it's entirety, and can be found at the main webpage which will also have the comments, you can find that by clicking on the name of the article.
Lesbians Do Have Morals!
Published: Saturday | April 16, 2011 17 Comments
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Peter Espeut, in his column 'The right to discriminate' (April 8), began his defence against the non-inclusion of a non-discrimination clause against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Jamaican population by drawing upon the fear of Jamaicans.
A church that does not condone homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism cannot, by any account, be forced to admit these persons into its clergy, as that would be an infringement on their rights. The church is a private body governed by its own rules; the same goes for schools employing openly LGBT persons.
Mr Espeut says that by including a clause of non-discrimination, it may cause "young people ... [to believe] that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles'." Why, Mr Espeut, would anyone choose to live a life that they have heard over and over will lead them to hell, a life that would endanger their life?
anything goes
I do not know, Mr Espeut, if you are saying that "anything goes" is the characteristic of LGBT persons, or if such persons are amoral. If that is what you are saying, may I ask you how many LGBT persons have you met outside the stereotypical profile many have of LGBT people? Let me introduce you to a lesbian who has a moral compass: me. I am a lesbian, a Christian, an overcomer of a sexual crime. I am not amoral, I have values, I have a concept of right and wrong, I have moral principles.
Get it right, Mr Espeut, all heterosexuals aren't party animals and promiscuous beings, neither are all lesbians, bisexuals, gays, and transgenders.
I am, etc.,
ALEXIS JARVIS
Lesbian Christian and Human
Rights Activist
Jarvis@p2102442.pubip.peer1.net
Too Many Deaths for the First Part of the Month
I am currently at a loss for word, I am very much distraught one of these guys was a friend of mine. This is the exact reason we need protection under the charter of rights, and the repeal of Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the Offences Against the Person Act.
Visit my fellow blogger brother's post on the three deaths this week.
Visit my fellow blogger brother's post on the three deaths this week.
The Tragic Loss Of Three Icons In Less Than A Month ……..
The Irrationality of the Existence of the Buggery Law
In 2009 with the sexual offences bill being debated, Ernest Smith, South West St Ann Member of Parliament, made a few comments regarding the characteristics of homosexuals and the severity of punishment for buggery. Smith further called for J-FLAG to be investigated for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. Bruce Golding (Prime Minister) in distancing himself from Smiths’ comments said, "I disagree with the comments he (Smith) made about the rights of persons who advocate for liberation of laws relating to sexual offences, to facilitate, to allow persons the right of choice in their sexual practices" . With this do I start.
If persons have the right of choice in their sexual practices then why does the buggery law exist? The buggery law (sections 76, 77 and 79) of the Offences against the Person Act goes against the very notion of the right of someone to choose what sexual activity or practice they will engage in.
There are two points that are advanced for the validation, of keeping this law on the books. There are:
1. To protect our children. Nonsense. Removal of the buggery law will not increase the possibility of our children being sexual targets. In a sexual offence case recently a JLP minister was charged with buggery. That man should have been charged with rape! Rape is forced sexual activity against someone’s will. The protection of children, women and men should not rest on the continuance of this law. It in fact reduces the sentence of the perpetrator.
2. It is against Christian moral. Now for the people (of which there are many) who seem to have forgotten that Jamaica is not a church state, the reason the buggery law is kept on the books cannot rest on Christian or any other religious argument. The Charter of Rights (section 21) guarantees each person the right to freedom of conscience (which includes freedom of religion); to bind anyone to a law because it is your religious view - that they are wrong and in this case immoral - is a travesty and a violation of that person’s constitutional right.
"If we start to yield; if we start to liberalize in the direction that strong organized lobby would insist that we should, then where do you draw the line?" the prime minister said. Again Mr. Golding like many opponents of human rights for gays, you seem to want to create a link between the human rights and the sexual rights of homosexuals and those in the GLBT(Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered) community, with bestiality and pedophilia. Bestiality and homosexuality are two different things Mr. Golding. I do not condone bestiality. Homosexuality concerns a same-sex, human to human relationship, not human-animal relationship; the same goes for pedophilia; pedophilia “is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children” (World Health Organization, Section F65.4). There are pedophiles who are attracted to young girls and pedophiles who are attracted to young boys. Those are different from adults who are attracted to adults of the same sex.
Again the Prime Minister says, "We have a duty to protect people in the country, and therefore, we will never support or condone either the acts of violence or threats of violence or intimidation in any shape or form against persons because of their sexual preferences or lifestyle,” yet it is known that persons are harassed, abused, and been recipients of violence due to their sexual orientations; and the Charter of Rights was recently passed without protection from discrimination for persons of the GLBT community. You have failed Mr. Golding, you and your government have failed at your “duty to protect the people in the country”, including the GLBT community. You need to be held accountable, and don’t laugh it off like you did with Mr. K.D Knight recently (Mannatt/Dudus Inquiry).
Mr. Golding has said that as part of a menu of sexual legislation in the new bill being considered; provision was being made to sentence those persons who engage in buggery carried out in circumstances similar to rape or grievous assault to life. May I advise you Mr. Brilliant Prime Minister, that to be able to effectively bring about that legislation, it means you will need to acknowledge that there are instances where buggery is not committed in circumstances similar to rape or grievous assaults.
"We will never start peeping in anybody's bedroom to see what they are doing within their own privacy. We will never start hounding down people because they may have lifestyles that we would prefer did not exist." As much as many would prefer that other sexual orientations did not exist, Mr. Golding, you do not have any authority to dictate who a person is, what sexual preference they may chose, or what orientation they may be born as. Regarding the ‘peeing..in bedroom[s]’, let me make you aware that per section 19(2)(b),(c) and contrary to what you, and many others purport, police and any other such person acting under the authority of the law can kick down your door, or break through your window, for the purpose of defending (as Mr. Smith said) the public morality, or from preventing a crime from taking place (buggery).
One question I will ask to finish off my article is for Mr. Golding, a member of the security forces, and/or an attorney at law. If two persons (male and male, or male and female, or female and female) are engaging in anal sex, and the neighbours break in on them and begin to inflict injury; when that is reported to the police:
1. Will the persons engaging in anal sex be charged for buggery?
2. Will the police only charge the neighbours who broke in and inflicted harm?
3. Will the police charge both sets?
If the answer to the above is #3 then, it means the law is ineffective, discriminatory, and a stumbling block to the access of protection.
What say you?
If persons have the right of choice in their sexual practices then why does the buggery law exist? The buggery law (sections 76, 77 and 79) of the Offences against the Person Act goes against the very notion of the right of someone to choose what sexual activity or practice they will engage in.
There are two points that are advanced for the validation, of keeping this law on the books. There are:
1. To protect our children. Nonsense. Removal of the buggery law will not increase the possibility of our children being sexual targets. In a sexual offence case recently a JLP minister was charged with buggery. That man should have been charged with rape! Rape is forced sexual activity against someone’s will. The protection of children, women and men should not rest on the continuance of this law. It in fact reduces the sentence of the perpetrator.
2. It is against Christian moral. Now for the people (of which there are many) who seem to have forgotten that Jamaica is not a church state, the reason the buggery law is kept on the books cannot rest on Christian or any other religious argument. The Charter of Rights (section 21) guarantees each person the right to freedom of conscience (which includes freedom of religion); to bind anyone to a law because it is your religious view - that they are wrong and in this case immoral - is a travesty and a violation of that person’s constitutional right.
"If we start to yield; if we start to liberalize in the direction that strong organized lobby would insist that we should, then where do you draw the line?" the prime minister said. Again Mr. Golding like many opponents of human rights for gays, you seem to want to create a link between the human rights and the sexual rights of homosexuals and those in the GLBT(Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered) community, with bestiality and pedophilia. Bestiality and homosexuality are two different things Mr. Golding. I do not condone bestiality. Homosexuality concerns a same-sex, human to human relationship, not human-animal relationship; the same goes for pedophilia; pedophilia “is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children” (World Health Organization, Section F65.4). There are pedophiles who are attracted to young girls and pedophiles who are attracted to young boys. Those are different from adults who are attracted to adults of the same sex.
Again the Prime Minister says, "We have a duty to protect people in the country, and therefore, we will never support or condone either the acts of violence or threats of violence or intimidation in any shape or form against persons because of their sexual preferences or lifestyle,” yet it is known that persons are harassed, abused, and been recipients of violence due to their sexual orientations; and the Charter of Rights was recently passed without protection from discrimination for persons of the GLBT community. You have failed Mr. Golding, you and your government have failed at your “duty to protect the people in the country”, including the GLBT community. You need to be held accountable, and don’t laugh it off like you did with Mr. K.D Knight recently (Mannatt/Dudus Inquiry).
Mr. Golding has said that as part of a menu of sexual legislation in the new bill being considered; provision was being made to sentence those persons who engage in buggery carried out in circumstances similar to rape or grievous assault to life. May I advise you Mr. Brilliant Prime Minister, that to be able to effectively bring about that legislation, it means you will need to acknowledge that there are instances where buggery is not committed in circumstances similar to rape or grievous assaults.
"We will never start peeping in anybody's bedroom to see what they are doing within their own privacy. We will never start hounding down people because they may have lifestyles that we would prefer did not exist." As much as many would prefer that other sexual orientations did not exist, Mr. Golding, you do not have any authority to dictate who a person is, what sexual preference they may chose, or what orientation they may be born as. Regarding the ‘peeing..in bedroom[s]’, let me make you aware that per section 19(2)(b),(c) and contrary to what you, and many others purport, police and any other such person acting under the authority of the law can kick down your door, or break through your window, for the purpose of defending (as Mr. Smith said) the public morality, or from preventing a crime from taking place (buggery).
One question I will ask to finish off my article is for Mr. Golding, a member of the security forces, and/or an attorney at law. If two persons (male and male, or male and female, or female and female) are engaging in anal sex, and the neighbours break in on them and begin to inflict injury; when that is reported to the police:
1. Will the persons engaging in anal sex be charged for buggery?
2. Will the police only charge the neighbours who broke in and inflicted harm?
3. Will the police charge both sets?
If the answer to the above is #3 then, it means the law is ineffective, discriminatory, and a stumbling block to the access of protection.
What say you?
Monday, April 11, 2011
My Response to Peter Espeut's column ‘The Right To Discriminate’
The following is my response to Peter Espeut's column ‘The Right To Discriminate’ (April 8,2011). I had to edit and shorten it to send it to the editor. The letter that follows is the complete unedited letter. If my letter is published then I will repost it here for you as well.
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Peter Espeut in his column ‘The Right To Discriminate’ (April 8,2011) began his defense against the non-inclusion of a non-discrimination clause against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Jamaican population, with the fear factor of the Church being forced to admit gays into clergy and schools being forced to admit openly LGBT persons as guidance counselors.
Mr. Espeut and fellow thinkers (including Shirley Richards) draw upon the fear of Jamaicans in furthering their (at times) baseless arguments. A church that does not condone homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism, cannot by any account be forced to admit these persons into their clergy that would be an infringement on their rights. The church is a private body governed by its own rules; the rules of the state (so long as there is separation) cannot be forced onto them. The same goes, as it regards schools employing openly LGBT persons. A private school, not funded by the government can set their own rules and chose whether to accept such persons or not. For example, if a school is operated by Seventh-day Adventists, then non-Adventists or even non-Christians will be required to abide by the rules of that school. If however, the school is funded by the government of the land then the laws of the government will also govern how such an institution is run.
“I do not believe that two consenting adults, of whatever gender, should be criminalised for having sexual intercourse with each other in the privacy of their homes”, why then Mr. Espeut should you not support even the very basic call of the removal of Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the Offences Against the Person Act? Those sections can allow persons to be targeted, dragged out of their homes and beaten, and/or jailed. “Personally, I do not think that homosexual relations are wholesome”, I partially agree with you Sir, however I must say that there are many heterosexual relationships out there that are not wholesome; no single side of the fence has completely wholesome relationships.
You say Mr. Espeut, that by including a clause of non-discrimination, it may cause “young people not yet self-actualised, who are still developing a consciousness of themselves and their sexual identity… [to believe] that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles’”. I personally believe that due to music culture many young persons, experiment with sex in all forms (it has always happened), do not confuse that (experimentation) Mr. Espeut with identity/orientation. Why, Mr. Espeut would anyone chose to live a life that they have heard over and over will lead them to hell, a life that would endanger their life? Why Mr. Espeut, would I chose to live a life that has caused me to be the target of a sexual crime? No Mr. Espeut, you need to stop and think it over.
Bestiality and homosexuality are two different things Mr. Espeut. I do not condone bestiality. Homosexuality concerns a same-sex, human to human relationship, not human-animal relationship. Though you have not said both are the same, persons reading your article and persons who despise homosexuals usually love to equate the two, this is the clarification. The same goes for pedophilia; pedophilia “is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children” (World Health Organization, Section F65.4). There are pedophiles who are attracted to young girls and pedophiles who are attracted to young boys. Those are different from adults who are attracted to adults of the same sex.
“We can decriminalise homosexuality”, then make the call Mr. Espeut, or is this just talk? Make the call to remove sections 76, 77, and 79.
“Modernist, neoliberal people reject even the idea of having norms and values - and anything goes”, I do not know Mr. Espeut if you are saying that this is the characteristic of LGBT persons, I am not sure, Mr. Espeut, if you are saying that we are amoral. If that is what you are saying, then may I ask you how many LGBT persons have you met outside of the stereotypical profile many have of LGBT people? Let me introduce you to a lesbian who has a moral compass; me. I am a lesbian, a Christian, an over-comer of a sexual crime. I am not amoral, I have values, I have a concept of right and wrong, I have moral principles. Get it right Mr. Espeut, all heterosexuals aren’t party animals and promiscuous beings, neither are all lesbians, bisexuals, gays, and transgenders.
Mr. Peter Espeut in his column ‘The Right To Discriminate’ (April 8,2011) began his defense against the non-inclusion of a non-discrimination clause against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Jamaican population, with the fear factor of the Church being forced to admit gays into clergy and schools being forced to admit openly LGBT persons as guidance counselors.
Mr. Espeut and fellow thinkers (including Shirley Richards) draw upon the fear of Jamaicans in furthering their (at times) baseless arguments. A church that does not condone homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderism, cannot by any account be forced to admit these persons into their clergy that would be an infringement on their rights. The church is a private body governed by its own rules; the rules of the state (so long as there is separation) cannot be forced onto them. The same goes, as it regards schools employing openly LGBT persons. A private school, not funded by the government can set their own rules and chose whether to accept such persons or not. For example, if a school is operated by Seventh-day Adventists, then non-Adventists or even non-Christians will be required to abide by the rules of that school. If however, the school is funded by the government of the land then the laws of the government will also govern how such an institution is run.
“I do not believe that two consenting adults, of whatever gender, should be criminalised for having sexual intercourse with each other in the privacy of their homes”, why then Mr. Espeut should you not support even the very basic call of the removal of Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the Offences Against the Person Act? Those sections can allow persons to be targeted, dragged out of their homes and beaten, and/or jailed. “Personally, I do not think that homosexual relations are wholesome”, I partially agree with you Sir, however I must say that there are many heterosexual relationships out there that are not wholesome; no single side of the fence has completely wholesome relationships.
You say Mr. Espeut, that by including a clause of non-discrimination, it may cause “young people not yet self-actualised, who are still developing a consciousness of themselves and their sexual identity… [to believe] that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally acceptable 'alternative lifestyles’”. I personally believe that due to music culture many young persons, experiment with sex in all forms (it has always happened), do not confuse that (experimentation) Mr. Espeut with identity/orientation. Why, Mr. Espeut would anyone chose to live a life that they have heard over and over will lead them to hell, a life that would endanger their life? Why Mr. Espeut, would I chose to live a life that has caused me to be the target of a sexual crime? No Mr. Espeut, you need to stop and think it over.
Bestiality and homosexuality are two different things Mr. Espeut. I do not condone bestiality. Homosexuality concerns a same-sex, human to human relationship, not human-animal relationship. Though you have not said both are the same, persons reading your article and persons who despise homosexuals usually love to equate the two, this is the clarification. The same goes for pedophilia; pedophilia “is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children” (World Health Organization, Section F65.4). There are pedophiles who are attracted to young girls and pedophiles who are attracted to young boys. Those are different from adults who are attracted to adults of the same sex.
“We can decriminalise homosexuality”, then make the call Mr. Espeut, or is this just talk? Make the call to remove sections 76, 77, and 79.
“Modernist, neoliberal people reject even the idea of having norms and values - and anything goes”, I do not know Mr. Espeut if you are saying that this is the characteristic of LGBT persons, I am not sure, Mr. Espeut, if you are saying that we are amoral. If that is what you are saying, then may I ask you how many LGBT persons have you met outside of the stereotypical profile many have of LGBT people? Let me introduce you to a lesbian who has a moral compass; me. I am a lesbian, a Christian, an over-comer of a sexual crime. I am not amoral, I have values, I have a concept of right and wrong, I have moral principles. Get it right Mr. Espeut, all heterosexuals aren’t party animals and promiscuous beings, neither are all lesbians, bisexuals, gays, and transgenders.
_____________________________________________________________
Monday, May 3, 2010
Is the US promoting and exporting Homophobia?
They say the US is promoting and exporting homosexuality but in light of this Ugandan Bill which may have been influenced by right-wing US Christians, couldn't it also be said that the US is exporting and promoting homophobia?
Friday, April 23, 2010
Somebody Tell Me this
Since when is gay rights special rights? Doesn't it still come under civil rights? This charter of rights issue has been stalled for years, and now that it has once again been brought up for completion we have some more issues coming in. The people from the Lawyers Christian Fellowship (Jamaica) have made the issue of basic human rights into a issue of gays wanting special rights and marriage rights.
The LGBT community in Jamaica is calling for our rights to be acknowledged. There has not been one call for gay marriage, but this is what they've jumped on. Just look at this article 'Unholy union' - Charter could sanction gay marriage in Jamaica - Christian lawyers. This same articulated fear from 2006 is still present today and is played upon by these people. You self-righteous, fearful people all we are calling for is our civil rights, our basic human rights.
"The religious groups are also concerned about the inclusion of a privacy clause in Section 13, Subsection 3 of the Charter of Rights, with the words 'respect for private and family life, privacy of the home'." (full article here) The privacy clause is another big fear, why? What is so wrong with LGBT people wanting respect for privacy and privacy of home? Since when is it the government's, and Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and homophobic people and so many other persons' business to be peeping through the windows and under door bottoms and through key holes to see what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS do in THEIR bedroom?
Shirley Richards president of Lawyers' Christian Fellowship noted (in the above article) that "The rights pertaining to freedom of conscience, which is currently granted under Section 21 of the current Constitution, have not been fully repeated in the charter". She also added that the revised charter does not explicitly include the right to provide religious instruction, to students; as an example.
Isn't Jamaica a democratic society made up "OUT OF MANY ONE PEOPLE"? There are many persons in Jamaica who are not Christians, we have Muslims, Hindus, atheists and so forth. Why should this group demand an explicit inclusion for them to be able to give such instruction which may be against the beliefs of these people, while at the same time they want to deny LGBT citizens their rights? It doesn't add up people.
Now the fear that these persons expressed are legitimate but their main fears that they won't be able to preach out against homosexuality is in my opinion not well founded. The right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of beliefs and conscience is not, I believe an absolute right. Absolute would mean there would be no restriction on any of these rights. Can you imagine persons having the right to incite violence without knowing that they will be held accountable? That is where I believe those rights should stop; there is a line between belief and incite. You can believe that someone will go to hell for being gay you can preach that if they don't repent they will go to hell. But preaching, and encouraging that they be burnt, killed, and/or tortured is wrong and there is no way around that.
These persons seem more inclined to strike fear into the hearts of Jamaicans than they are in speaking the truth, speaking compassion, tolerance, communication. Where is the Christianity that you ought to display? Come on you're people of God, but this kind of behavior isn't Christ like. Just remember this, there are LGBT Christians all over the world, praying for you. We are a part of God's family. It is too bad that using scare tactics is the method that you have to resort to.
The LGBT community in Jamaica is calling for our rights to be acknowledged. There has not been one call for gay marriage, but this is what they've jumped on. Just look at this article 'Unholy union' - Charter could sanction gay marriage in Jamaica - Christian lawyers. This same articulated fear from 2006 is still present today and is played upon by these people. You self-righteous, fearful people all we are calling for is our civil rights, our basic human rights.
"The religious groups are also concerned about the inclusion of a privacy clause in Section 13, Subsection 3 of the Charter of Rights, with the words 'respect for private and family life, privacy of the home'." (full article here) The privacy clause is another big fear, why? What is so wrong with LGBT people wanting respect for privacy and privacy of home? Since when is it the government's, and Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and homophobic people and so many other persons' business to be peeping through the windows and under door bottoms and through key holes to see what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS do in THEIR bedroom?
Shirley Richards president of Lawyers' Christian Fellowship noted (in the above article) that "The rights pertaining to freedom of conscience, which is currently granted under Section 21 of the current Constitution, have not been fully repeated in the charter". She also added that the revised charter does not explicitly include the right to provide religious instruction, to students; as an example.
Isn't Jamaica a democratic society made up "OUT OF MANY ONE PEOPLE"? There are many persons in Jamaica who are not Christians, we have Muslims, Hindus, atheists and so forth. Why should this group demand an explicit inclusion for them to be able to give such instruction which may be against the beliefs of these people, while at the same time they want to deny LGBT citizens their rights? It doesn't add up people.
Now the fear that these persons expressed are legitimate but their main fears that they won't be able to preach out against homosexuality is in my opinion not well founded. The right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of beliefs and conscience is not, I believe an absolute right. Absolute would mean there would be no restriction on any of these rights. Can you imagine persons having the right to incite violence without knowing that they will be held accountable? That is where I believe those rights should stop; there is a line between belief and incite. You can believe that someone will go to hell for being gay you can preach that if they don't repent they will go to hell. But preaching, and encouraging that they be burnt, killed, and/or tortured is wrong and there is no way around that.
These persons seem more inclined to strike fear into the hearts of Jamaicans than they are in speaking the truth, speaking compassion, tolerance, communication. Where is the Christianity that you ought to display? Come on you're people of God, but this kind of behavior isn't Christ like. Just remember this, there are LGBT Christians all over the world, praying for you. We are a part of God's family. It is too bad that using scare tactics is the method that you have to resort to.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Jamaica Gleaner Letter: Making Scapegoats Of Gays
I believe I wrote a blog on something along this line, not so well put together mind you, but I think I did. Let me look, I did but I was doing more ranting that talking (here). The below is a letter written by Mr. Maurice Tomlinson. Same thing I've been saying; well said Mr. Tomlinson.
Published: Monday | April 19, 2010
The Editor, Sir:
Shirley Richards of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship has so far not commented on the recent spate of domestic violence being perpetuated against our women by men from all walks of life, including entertainers. She has instead, chosen to decry the 'deceptive' Walk for Tolerance, put on by Jamaica AIDS Support for Life, which sought to increase awareness of the need for tolerance for groups vulnerable to HIV/AIDS as an effective way to combat HIV/AIDS.
Love and tolerance
She has been silent on the beating and killing of women. She apparently spurns the biblical injunctions of love and tolerance of the marginalised, regardless of acceptance of their lifestyle. She utterly rejects legal and constitutional principles about the recognition and protection of rights for the most vulnerable in society. She takes on the gay issue because it is easy.
And then there are those like J.M. Fletcher (Gleaner, Saturday, April 17 ) who, preposterously ask gays to leave Jamaica. This is neither possible nor probable. Hitler tried the same thing during World War II with disastrous results for the German society and the world at large. The world is still paying the price for Nazi intolerance.
Jamaica's intolerance and homophobia has also blighted the world in the form of our violent music, and the world is now reacting by banning our artistes and implementing hate-speech legislation.
For those who think that gay rights are not civil rights, look carefully at the wording of the international treaties created after WWII in reaction to Nazi brutality. Courts as far flung as India, South Africa and Brazil have found that gay rights are indeed civil rights.
Jamaica needs to focus on the real threat to its peace and security, which is a poorly performing economy, instead of seeking to make scapegoats out of a marginalised and vulnerable group. That would be Nazism all over again.
I am, etc.,
MAURICE TOMLINSON
maurice_tomlinson@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
