Have a read of this letter where the letter writer implies that homosexuality is learnt behaviour among other anti gay points yet tries to disguise her hate through this supposed tolerance.
The writer by the way is a Justice of the Peace, and a senior member of Boulevard Baptist Church
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Some years ago, I had the opportunity of interviewing some 50 homosexuals, of which only about five were female. Unfortunately, most, if not all, were white-collar persons aged 25-45. This research project was part of my university study, captioned 'Profile of the Jamaican homosexual'.
My hypothesis was that homosexuality was a learned behaviour, and so I set out to prove same, which I did.
Long after I completed my study, I revisited the raw data and, interestingly, I found that a fair percentage of my sample had homosexuals in their antecedent family. I hasten to say that I am not alluding that homosexuality is hereditary. It could have been picked up from the social package within the family. Like any abnormal behaviour, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc., homosexuality falls in a group of deviant behaviours.
Be that as it may, Jamaican society, for the most part, uses the Bible as its benchmark for social behaviour, and we also set our values and standards on the three Ns: normal, natural and nice.
Additionally, and ironically, we were given the buggery law by the British, and today it is the same British who are demanding that the law be repealed. David Cameron is talking tough.
I am cognisant of human rights and I would suggest that homosexuality behind closed doors, between consenting partners of legal age, should be decriminalised, and we can let God be their judge. However, we should still criminalise the flaunting of this lifestyle in public spaces. This would ban any outdoor activities, like drag parties, etc.
By extension, homosexuals should be barred from adopting children or getting married, and these strictures could be added to a revised buggery law.
We can only meet them halfway. While powerful homosexuals have successfully removed their behaviour from contemporary abnormal psychology manuals, thus promoting themselves as normal, we cannot allow the few to tear down the many and for society to embrace their behaviour.
If we do, we may as well accept bestiality, or plainly put, man and dog.
I trust that our PM will see the logic in a revised buggery law - half in favour of homosexuals and half in favour of heterosexuals.
ELVENA WILLIAMS REITTIE
Continued from above
This letter writer is either confused, plainly disingenuous or just thinking we will settle for bread crumbs as it relates to this matter of decriminalization of buggery, the two mouthing or flip flopping here wreaks of a kind of piecemeal tolerance or I guess we should acquiesce to this garbage. Her stupidity is even more glaring not understanding the nuances with bisexuality and that of many double gender lovers presently involved in gay relationships had children as a product of previous heterosexual unions one would have thought she would had gleaned that from her so called study. To link same gender loving rights agitation to a graduatory move to demand rights for beastiality is plain dishonest and shows a hidden agenda here in a sick minded individual.
If she has a problem with effeminate behaviour and seeks to co-relate effeminacy with homosexuality then she is an idiot plain and simple if truth be told not all effeminate males are homosexual and not all homosexual males are effeminate, in fact effemopbohia is a major LGBT community issue as well as it is.
To suggest the decriminalization of buggery while ignoring the obvious reflection of that possibly seismic change in the aesthetic of homosexual life in this country to become more pronounced and public also is an idiotic position to take in my view. As we are living in this country we are in the middle of a metrosexual and public effeminacy revolution, also to be included in the mix are transgender individuals who are presented as their desired gender i.e male to female for purposes of this response. Literally how we dress is an expression of who we are.
I may further add to this my facebook comment where I expressed in more local parlance:
"Overall this letter is plain hatred disguised but she step on my foot right harder here when she says :
"I am cognizant of human rights and I would suggest that homosexuality behind closed doors, between consenting partners of legal age, should be decriminalised, and we can let God be their judge. However, we should still criminalise the flaunting of this lifestyle in public spaces. This would ban any outdoor activities, like drag parties, etc."
We need some fierce drag queens to find this letter writer, dance infront of her or subject her to a cratches mawnin party and give her a heart attack ..... bright n out a order a talk bout ban my queen dem........... no sah!!!!!!!!!
.......... can u imagine, it is a line that has been coming from certain corners of our intellegencia where if gays gets rights then other deviant rights seekers are gonna turn up clearly not knowing the differences ... this two mouthing/tolerance flip flop is so typical of some of these haters under disguise .... the other day I heard Leachim Semaj echo a similar sentiment."
The public's non acceptance of displays of outward same sex affection has been an issue for decades now based on the negative perceptions of male homosexuality which supposed challenges our devoted machismo and male egos conveniently stoked by the tabloid media and with no serious rebuttal from our advocacy structure until recently but as a nation one will naturally follow the other as in a positive change in the law will mean a change in attitude and expression of the persons the positive impact the law will have. One leading blogger commented: "What concerns me is that an editor decided that this should be letter of the day. Given the editorial that was published yesterday, is the Gleaner striving for "balance"?
Now she did a study in university. Great for her. In what discipline? What was the methodology? (That's a stupid research question by the way. Is homosexuality learnt? Yes. She went about answering a question that she already had a(n) (mis)informed opinion about)
By suggeting she is a scholar she is validating an opinion that is still very much an opinion."
Another response came from an ally in St. Vincent
I just read your letter published in the Gleaner and as it's a public forum I feel free to comment. You are entitled to your hypothesis but interviewing 50 people doesn't make a study where you can make any real scientific conclusions. Why not leave it to the experts who have sampled thousands? I, as a homosexual, can tell you that I believe that I was born this way. I always knew as long as I could remember that I was different and later on realized what this meant.
You are not in a position to define scientifically that homosexuality is an "abnormal behaviour" as you stated. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 1970's and I tend to get my information from credible sources, though my bias is self-serving, but at least it doesn't demonize people and support perpetuated violence to an entire group of people. You went on to suggest that accepting homosexuality is the same as accepting bestiality, "If we do, we may as well accept bestiality, or plainly put, man and dog.". That's just plain stupid, for want of a better word. As a University graduate you should know better. At least you didn't mention the school you went to, which I presume would be embarrassed that you are an reflection of the quality of their education. I hope it's not UWI.
You went on to write, "We can only meet them halfway". You are not even on the bridge, not even close. To have a meaningful dialogue between groups with opposing views you have to at least recognise that they are both human (bestiality references don't help) and that they are cognizant and coherent ( you wrote "Like any abnormal behaviour, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc., homosexuality falls in a group of deviant behaviours"). When you get to that point, then we can have a conversation based on mutual respect, if not agreement."
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Some people are gay ELVENA WILLIAMS REITTIE get over it.
Peace and tolerance