Decriminalizing Homosexuality is Wrong, and so is the UN Position!
Posted in the Georgetown, Guyana Forum
Since: Dec 08
#1 Dec 26, 2008
With HIV/AIDS the world is witnessing the curious intersection of deception, gay militancy, disease, epidemiology and human rights and one of its most disturbing manifestation in the craze to decriminalize hitherto criminal activity.
Christians have had to step carefully, disaggregating legitimate and valid responses to the plight of PLWHA from an overt and covert gay-militant agenda. Unfortunately, some of our regional/global institutions have not been as careful!
While the very careful and measured language used by the CARICOM official in the article above is understandable, I am worried at the very trite treatment that the UN envoy is giving this very important topic. The idea of an "Ideal Caribbean Person" tells me that we are all better than that...
In the article "Aids and Decriminalization: How Large is the Hoax?", we pointed to the fact that gay militancy actually had a "marketing plan" that outlined its intention to use and abuse AIDS as a vehicle to manufacture "rights" (see Judith Reisman's law review "Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth"; 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002); http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles... ). This plan, and its consequences, should be rejected!
Homosexuality, we will find, needs entire medical brigades and national health infrastructures to support the deathstyle ... in addition to a generous dose of deception via gay militancy! This is why the first effort in activist states has always been to infiltrate the Health Sector, many times at the ministerial level.
Then there is the social policy dimension. See Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement, by Steve Baldwin, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267 (2002),( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles... )
Lawyer Roger J. Magnuson, in the book "Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!" makes the very telling observation:
"The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists ... merit and demand serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate." (Magnuson, p. 137)
The "inversion" ... and its calamitous consequences, has been dealt with at length by Justice Antonin Scalia:
This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.(Scalia, J. dissenting at page 30 of "The Case Against PANCAP And The Decriminalization Of Homosexuality"; http://www.scribd.com/doc/8246838/THE-CASE-AG... and at Lawrence v. Texas online).
He goes on ...
It is indeed true that later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress, ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.(Scalia, J. dissenting at page 32 of The Case Against PANCAP And The Decriminalization Of Homosexuality http://www.scribd.com/doc/8246838/THE-CASE-AG... and at Lawrence v. Texas elsewhere online)
The primary task will therefore be to provide citizens with the information that they need to make responsible decisions.
As we assess the hard evidence, there seems to be only one inescapable conclusion that any informed citizen can reach:
The UN position is wrong!
December 26, 2008
Since: Nov 08
#2 Feb 15, 2009
How about the philosophy of letting people live their lives in the most fulfilling way for THEM? So long as they don't spread their disease to the rest of the population it shouldn't be a problem, right? Maybe your problem is simply that you don't like homosexuals? If so, just say so...we don't need some long, convoluted argument.
By the way, the bible is against a lot of things including divorce, adultery, eating shellfish and a few other things that we tend to dismiss because we don't agree with what the bible teaches regarding those matters. So are we going to be hypocrites and pick and choose what we want to follow in the bible or are we going to condemn divorce and eating shellfish as emphatically as we condemn homosexuality?
Add your comments below
|komal chand||Jun '16||inspector||2|
|guyana bottom house tv stations||Jun '16||inspector||2|
|ramotar crying fowl (May '15)||Jun '16||inspector||14|
|lawless and corrupt||Jun '16||inspector||4|
|Row-he (Jun '15)||Jun '16||inspector||20|
|jadeo the criminal (May '15)||Jun '16||inspector||17|
|burnham garden city (May '15)||Apr '16||INSPECTOR||11|
Find what you want!
Search Georgetown, Guyana Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC