Issue: Jamaica's Anti-Buggery Law
I take issue with many of the arguments the writer of The Gleaner editorial titled 'Discrimination against gays: a folly' (July 7, 2011) used to support his or her points.
In the editorial, one paragraph was devoted to showing the increasing popularity of legislation supporting gay unions in the United States. In citing a trend in the US, the writers of the editorial are employing bandwagon appeal to try to convince Jamaicans that it is okay to legalise homosexual unions and tolerate homosexual lifestyles. Such careless writing belongs in vacuous fashion magazines, not in a national newspaper, and certainly not on the editorial page.
Economic gain
The editorial's next argument is an economic one: being tolerant of gays and having gay-friendly laws would make Jamaica a more attractive tourist destination, thereby generating more revenue for the island. The formidable purchasing power of homosexuals is mentioned, and a feeble argument about childless gay couples having greater inclination and more means to contribute to the tourism industry is thrown in for good measure.
To show you that this argument does not work, I invite you to consider the set of all Americans with net worth in excess of US$1 billion. These people are wealthy beyond words, and travel a lot, so they are perhaps more likely tourists than the average American.
Suppose for some strange reason that these affluent Americans will only consider visiting Jamaica (note the gap between consideration and action) if the Jamaican flag were blue. Should we change our flag in hopes of appeasing this set of rich Americans? Obviously not. This set is relatively small (as is the set of gay Americans who refuse to visit Jamaica) and there is no guarantee that if we changed our flag (policy) they would come rushing to our shores (gap between consideration and action).
What troubles me the most about the argument above, however, is the sinister invitation to become mercenaries, pledging our allegiance to the highest bidder. Financial gain as our sole objective is not the way forward for Jamaica. In fact, it is this very principle, individually applied in our politics, that has authored our failure as an indepen-dent nation thus far.
Whatever decision we as a nation arrive at on this issue must arise from deep introspection and stock-taking, not the lecherous gaze of a money-hungry harlot.
D.N.G.
ENDS
My two cents
It seems the writer here DNG is missing that the same way he or she is complaining that the reasons for getting the pink dollar is not right is the same way casino gambling has been quietly snuck through the back door ironically under a so called Christian conservative government with close ties to the all power and financially viable Seventh Day Adventists, he or she didn't see that is right? we always have a problem with anything remotely leaning to "gay" look at how our tourism interests market the nation to the world by selling sun sea and sand and other attributes to reach varying demographics.
Do people like DNG think that somehow making all things "gay" will unleash some raunchy and decadent madness on the island and that somehow we are going to infect or poison the minds of others?
what unfounded fear these persons have?
The gay community is just another one of those demographics although I doubt we will see an influx of persons coming to Jamaica if the law were changed tomorrow as the rest of the world is still years behind our reality in a sense in terms of perceptions and think persons will be hacked to death literally if they are pointed out or at leasts suspected to be gay.
That "blue flag" analogy by DNG was so off course and simplistic, is this writer trying to insult our intelligence or something?
Get over it DNG some people are gay!, why are we afraid to embrace that fact and move on? We all can live together, aren't we already doing so until your fear and that of others cloud your judgement?
We already as a nation reasonably accept gay characheteur on stage readily and gay themed entertainment with a revolutionised dancehall culture now openly reflecting homo-thug identities and aesthetics or maybe the writer feels claustrophobic with the seeming implosion on Jamaican society of such themes and actions?
There are other opposing views as well to the Gleaner Editiorial and I also expressed a different take on the piece juxtaposing it to the political happenings recently.
Also See:
THE EDITOR, Sir:
The Gleaner editorial on Thursday was frightening, to say the least. Exactly what is the editor saying? That we should now change all the laws to ensure that gays are protected and free to do what they want to do in Jamaica?
Tourism is good for where, and the tourist dollar goes where? Certainly not in my household. I would not be surprised in future editorials Jamaicans are asked to fix up their children and parade them for gay tourists as in the days of slavery when they paraded our foreparents.
The editor should keep his personal opinion to himself/herself because I certainly am not interested. The Gleaner can suck up to politicians and gays as much as they like, but guess what, I am not compelled to read your paper.
CAROL CAMPBELL
Kingston 19
and My two cents on
Gleaner EDITORIAL – Discrimination Against Gays: A Great Folly
H
.mkv_000108708.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000109059.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000113988.jpg){kind=spacer}
+(Light).jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment