” we wish to remove the buggery law in order to make all sexual orientations and all intimate activities , whatever the nature of the participants (human / human or human / non human), normal, legal and morally equivalent to a binary adult human heterosexual relationship and to teach these ”truths” to your children. Persons who resist this progressive and intellectually sophisticated agenda are intolerant and mentally ill”
A) Not peeping into bedrooms !
This Blog gets the impression that significant persons with the power to influence public policy either do not understand or are deliberately choosing to ignore the philosophical framework within which the generals of LGBT activism and feminism seek to influence law.
It is very likely that most MSMs themselves do not consider the philosophical framework and merely wish to have their lifestyle vindicated but the issues are much more profound than these simple considerations.
This blog is not seeking to legalize righteousness nor “peep” into anyone’s bedroom but rather do what much of Jamaica’s media practitioners seem committed not to do i.e frame the debate at its core; the worldview of the activists.
Jamaica and the world are facing a radical rethink of the social order based on the worldview
No God ! No truth ! Everything is permissible !
In a democracy the people must be allowed to decide the direction the nation pursues but they must be informed about the issues, this is the role of the 4th estate , the Media. As such the Jamaica Gleaner for example has been an outstanding failure in framing the debate about removal of the buggery law positing the simplistic consideration that it is an archaic law.
B) Nihilism the coherent worldview of a secular society.
Nihilism (pron.: /ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningfulaspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also takeepistemological or metaphysical/ontological forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist.
The term nihilism is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws. Movements such as Futurism and deconstruction, among others, have been identified by commentators as “nihilistic” at various times in various contexts.
Nihilism is also a characteristic that has been ascribed to time periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch,and some Christian theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity and many aspects of modernity represent a rejection oftheism, and that rejection of their theistic doctrine entails nihilism.
C) Using HIV in MSM as a wedge for a nihilistic agenda.
The intimate activities of Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) have resulted in high and increasing levels of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among this group in most countries including rich developed nations such as the United States.
Nonetheless the LGBT lobby is so influential that despite clear medical data which indicates that removal of sodomy laws is neither necessary nor sufficient to decrease HIV among MSM Jamaica’s Minister of Health appears to be lobbying for removal of the nation’s buggery law which will make scat, farming, fisting, felching, watersports, anal pnetration etc between MSM legal in the island. This is said to be for ” the greater good”
Whilst removal of the buggery law is neither necessary nor sufficient to decrease HIV etc among MSM it is however an essential first step to normalizing same sex activity and being able to introduce relevant material on same sex activity into school curricula. It also provides a platform for claiming rights against discrimination.
When persons claim the buggery law must be removed to decrease HIV among MSM they are actually either knowingly or unwittingly seeking to make all sexual orientations and all intimate activities normal , legal and equivalent.
Whenever Jamaicans hear the statement ” We need to remove our buggery Law to decrease HIV rates among Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) they should be interpreting the speaker to be saying :
“we wish to remove the buggery law , this will make all sexual orientations and all intimate activities , whoever the participants (human / human or human / non-human), normal, legal and morally equivalent to a binary adult human heterosexual relationship and to teach these ”truths” to your children”.
D) A considered position or following the crowd ?
Jamaica Health Minister: Anti-gay laws must change for ‘greater good’
Jamaica’s Health Minister has indicated anti-gay laws in the country should change ‘for the greater good’ whatever people’s personal opinions.
Dr Fenton Ferguson particularly singled out comments by Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller who said, during her election campaign a year ago, she would allow her politicians a free vote on scrapping the ‘buggery laws’ that criminalize gay sex on the Caribbean island.
Dane Lewis, director of the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG), has previously told Gay Star News he is ‘hopeful’ legislation to remove the ‘buggery laws’ would be brought forward ‘in the life of this parliament’.
On human rights, Ferguson said Jamaicans had to keep pace with the rest of the world, despite traditional values.
He commented: ‘We can’t hide, we can’t dodge it. Whatever might be our past in terms of tradition, culture and views, the rest of the world is moving and the Caribbean must also move in relation to recognition of human rights issues.’
And he said Simpson Miller’s comments on pushing the decriminalization of gay sex had a positive impact worldwide.
‘For many it was almost a rescue statement in relation to Jamaica… where we are in terms of homophobia,’ he said.
‘Irrespective of what our personal opinion might be, I have my personal opinion, but I think for the greater good when you look at a situation we have to take decisions that will take us forwards in this present period.’
E) A must come !
Bestiality and Libertarianism
Often in gay marriage debates, the question arises: If we allow gay marriage, what next? Bestiality? Conor Friersdorf—who supports gay marriage—thinks this is silly, and claims that because an animal cannot consent to sex with a human, then libertarians should not worry about the ethics of criminalizing bestiality.
Here is a good reply by Samuel Goldman at The American Conservative, which very effectively refutes Friersdorf’s point. Sure, animals don’t consent to sex—but nor do they consent to being killed and eaten, or being trapped in a house as pets, and most people don’t worry about that.
But what does this mean for libertarianism? Goldman believes that “libertarians can offer no principled defense of laws prohibiting bestiality” and that, therefore, the continued existence of bestiality laws “will be because human nature revolts against the implications of libertarianism.”
It seems correct to say that libertarians certainly cannot come up with a principled defense of anti-bestiality laws. At least, I haven’t heard one or thought of one. But I do not take that to be at all opposed to human nature.
There are two issues that Goldman’s argument mixes together.
First is the question of whether “human nature revolts” at the thought of bestiality. I think most people would say yes.
But the more important question is whether bestiality should be something that the government punishes through the criminal law. Libertarians would say no, even if they answered yes to the first question.
And how does human nature revolt against non-punishment? I don’t see lots of people clamoring to throw “zoosexuals” in prison. I don’t even see them believing that the only just response to man-on-donkey sex is that the man suffer punishment. It’s not as though people have a “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” response to bestiality, as they would for, say, theft or murder. More likely, normal people just don’t want to deal with others who have sex with animals—which, of course, they would be able to do in a libertarian society.
I’m sure Conor Friersdorf’s heart is in the right place. But I don’t think he does his cause any good when he tries to argue that, really, liberals and libertarians can find a way to criminalize bestiality. To do so blurs the line between social mores and government action, so that they are treated as essentially the same thing, and then allows the opposition to say that your position somehow “shocks the conscience” if it doesn’t allow government action to preserve social mores, as though a failure to punish bestiality amounts to support for bestiality itself.
This is important because statists use this same argument against libertarians not only for bestiality, but also when discussing things like drug use, discrimination, child labor, or prostitution—all of which libertarians want to legalize but do not necessarily condone.
Just because someone believes that something should be legal does not mean that person likes it. What really shocks my conscience is that some people would add to an already over-crowded prison system for something as frivolous as bestiality.