Not peeping into bedrooms or legalizing righteousness !!

” 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”

                                                        Testifyingtotruth

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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

B)  Nihilism  the coherent worldview of a secular society.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilism (pron.: /ˈn.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈn.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.[1] 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.[2] Movements such as Futurism and deconstruction,[3] 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,[4]and some Christian theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity[5] and many aspects of modernity[3] represent a rejection oftheism, and that rejection of their theistic doctrine entails nihilism.

 

xxxxxxxxx

 

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”.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

D)  A considered position or following  the crowd ?

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/jamaica-health-minister-anti-gay-laws-must-change-%E2%80%98greater-good%E2%80%99041212

Jamaica Health Minister: Anti-gay laws must change for ‘greater good’

Health Minister Dr Fenton Ferguson says Jamaica must keep pace with international opinion and backs ‘buggery law’ review
04 December 2012 | By Tris Reid-Smith
Jamaica Health Minister Dr Fenton Ferguson has suggested reforming anti-gay laws may be for the '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.’

 

xxxxxxx 

E)   A must come !

http://beyondthegop.com/2012/12/17/bestiality-and-libertarianism/

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 thegovernment 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.

Share this:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s