Testifyingtotruth publishes the following on behalf of uroombolo the 8th
The following were in response to the Gleaner’s editorial ” A matter of fundamental human rights”. macgregor was among the first comments . uroombolo the 8th posted after mcagregor .
The Gleaner did not publish uroombolo the 8th’s comment .
They also did not publish a letter, along a similar line to the comment , which was sent to the editor.
The comment was apparently seen and removed.
xxxx E N D S xxxx
macgregor • 8 days ago
Dr. West, an anti-gay fundamentalist, commented on the US Supreme Court ruling in terms of the philosophy of “natural order” and conveniently forgot the concept of natural rights. Natural rights states ” no human being holds the right to initiate force or fraud against the person or property of another human being, under any circumstances.
Libertarians consider this principle to be the basis of all morality, and therefore, any violation of the principle is immoral, no matter what other arguments may be invoked to justify that violation.” The religious reason to deny any human being his/her natural rights to love by force and fraud is immoral.
It is not for religious people to enforce its beliefs on a secular society and it is fraudulent to use an outdated and unverified document to coerce the majority. At the end of the day, it is not my business to peek into people’s bedroom. I suggest that Dr. West find something better to do than being a Peeping Tom.
Discussion on Jamaica-Gleaner 36 comments
Editorial: A matter of fundamental rights
uroombolo the 8th
uroombolo the 8th 8 days ago Removed
The editorial would be spot on if homosexuality were normal however homosexuality is not normal – homosexual attraction, behaviour and identity are not consistent with design in the universe and is pathology. This is the fundamental flaw of the editor’s argument. No state is under obligation to call pathology diversity and issue “rights” to pathological behaviour.
The decision by the American Psychiatry Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of abnormalities in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) 2 was the first time a medical association defined normal without reference to design. The decision was forced in part by strong political agitation by the then gay rights movements. To date homosexuality and other LGBTTTIQ related issues are the only conditions in which medical associations have chosen to ignore design in the universe in determining whether they represent normality or pathology . There is no logical basis for this action. Jamaica is under no obligation to follow an illogical social experiment which will significantly victimise children. This has consistently been Dr. West’s argument against LGBTTTIQ “rights” . He also cites the advent of the HIV epidemics in 1981, a mere eight years after the APA’s decision, among MSM in American cities which had removed their buggery laws , as an easily measurable consequence of a flawed decision. We now know that 98% of the reason for the high rates of HIV among MSM relative to heterosexuals is due to the practise of buggery and the ability of MSM to reverse roles in this practise.
xxxxx E N D S xxxxxx
Editorial: A Matter Of Fundamental Rights
Share on google Share on twitter Share on facebook
Published:Sunday | June 28, 2015
Jamaica usually stands on the right side of history on socially progressive issues, sometimes as a leader of them. In the 1970s, we championed, and enforced, such initiatives as equal pay for women and paid maternity leave. It is 40 years, too, since the repeal of the Bastardy Act, removing the stigma of law that tarred children born out of wedlock.
But a courageous ruling by the US Supreme Court last week provided another reminder that there is still much work to be done to lift official discrimination from large swathes of Jamaica’s citizens and to provide them with equality under the law. The court, by a 5-4 majority, held that same-sex marriages are constitutional, thus making them legal across all 50 states, rather than the handful that already deemed them to be so.
That decision followed last month’s landslide referendum vote in Ireland in favour of gay marriage, continuing a trend in progressive societies. Britain, France, Spain, South Africa, Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Sweden and Portugal are among the other countries where the practice is already legal.
This is not some fad, or an attempt to advance some group’s so-called agenda or alleged lifestyle, as Jamaica’s anti-gay lobby, led largely by fundamentalist Christians, like to frame the debate. As uncomfortable as this may be for some of us, this issue, at its core, is the matter of fundamental human rights, including the right to human dignity and for individuals to exercise their right to choice, especially when that right does not impinge on the rights of others.
An Expression Of Love And Commitment
There are two critical elements to marriage. The first level is that it is a contractual arrangement between individuals who agree to share their lives and pool their resources with an institution sanctioned by the State.
But marriage’s deeper element is the solemnising of this arrangement beyond mere contract into an expression of love and commitment by which couples choose to live. There is no rational basis in a liberal, democratic, secular society why this institution should be the prerogative only of heterosexual couples.
Indeed, as Justice Anthony Kennedy held for the majority, to exclude same-sex couples impacts not only their right of choice, but to ban them from an arrangement whose function the society has held to be critical for the safeguard of families and the protection of children.
The American legal and constitutional factors applied by Justice Kennedy in his ruling are not totally at one with Jamaica’s. Indeed, marriage, as defined in Section 18(2) of Jamaica’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, is a “union between one man and one woman”. But they are not incongruent with the larger principles upon which fundamental human rights must rest, if the individual is to enjoy his/her innate right to dignity.
In that respect, on this issue, Jamaica remains stuck on first base. It retains the anachronistic buggery law, which maintains the State as voyeur and is the basis for the illegality of ultimate sexual expression among gay men. Indeed, some heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, too. It is also antipathetic to same-sex marriage – an institution that presupposes the consummation of its fact.
With her revolutionary stance that contradicted the anti-gay, “not-in-my-Cabinet” rhetoric, Portia Simpson Miller hinted at the courage to advance these rights. She must act.