Del Prado's Activist Statement Insults UNAIDS and CARICOM Policy on AIDS and Must be Rejected

Publish date: May 26, 2008

Original location: The Guyana Chronicle; "A Departure From Professional Conduct"; http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2026-05-08.html

Dear Editor,

I refer to the news article on comments by the current UNAIDS Country Coordinator for Guyana, Dr. Ruben del Prado (KN 5 22 08) and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut.

The comments reportedly attributed to Dr. Prado are disturbing in their departure from every known standard of professional conduct. Mr. Prado’s professional usefulness, and his integrity as a representative for UNAIDS in Guyana, has obviously been compromised. His statements are a serious violation of cautions in UNAIDS’s own policy brief, and it is clear that he has now become activist. Guyana’s 1998 National Policy adequately addresses discriminatory issues.

I am mindful of the seriousness of these allegations, and will copy this response to CAREC, WHO, PAHO, the CDC, the local Ministry of Health, the CARICOM Secretariat, the Caribbean Council of Churches, and the UN itself. This should, by itself, engineer a generous debate on the latitude Dr Prado took with inferring that his comments reflected official UN policy, since by no stretch of the imagination can it be assumed that the UN or its agencies deliberately advocates and/or supports policies that contradict the available scientific, legal and medical evidence. This would be foolish, even in the pursuit of “human rights”, and we await his strenuous defence of statements to this effect.

First, Dr.Prado is irresponsible in implying that the Yogyakarta Principles in any way reflects the letter and spirit of the UN Charter relative to medically dangerous and socially destructive activities of a sexual nature when the supporting evidence is overwhelming, and must now shoulder an equal irresponsibility in inferring UNAIDS’ bias through his not outlining a countervailing policy of “technical and financial support” to opponents of Sasod who have documented opposing arguments and evidence. A failure to correct this would infer that UNAIDS has chosen sides while the jury is still out, or, worse, that Prado has acted in complete and deliberate disregard of the evidence.

We cite the voluminous and well-articulated law reviews of Regent University’s “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told” law review series (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) and further show that these strike at the heart of entire sections of the “Yogyagkarta Principles”, and urge the prompt communication of the availability and amount of matching funding available to promote the findings of same law review series.

In advocating the above, we must specifically request Dr. Prado to respond with diligence and intensity to the following allegations of David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review series, since we will prove same:

".... So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia....”

Secondly, Dr. Prado is facetious and disingenuous in implying that the comments of PAHO’s Dr. Mirta Roses suggest the altogether ridiculous position that any opposition to Same-Sex Attraction Disorders represents “hatred against people with different sexual orientations”. In fact it shows the opposite (commendable professionalism) since no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled when he said: "But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being". The issue, we should remind UNAIDS, care-givers and health workers, should remain “behaviour modification” rather than “accommodation”.

Other activist strategies with some local relevance have been addressed in the online summary “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter”.

Thirdly, therefore, Prado exhibits an unprecedented degree of recklessness in advocating that “For UNAIDS, it is both a call of duty and an honour to support SASOD’s call for decriminalisation of homosexuality in Guyana”. We can and will ask the UN Secretary-General, as well as his local counterpart at CARICOM, to distance themselves and their organizations from this statement. We have shown that such a step will fly in the face of common sense, and seems to be the product of unusual strains of denial and delusion best described by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s book “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” (Baker Books, 2002).

It also illustrates that Prado’s fanciful flight from wishful thinking to insipid outburst is based on nothing else than a cruel disregard for public safety and order. Mr. Prado ignores the astonishing evidence in the law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement” (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ). Again, Mr. Prado’s professional usefulness, and his integrity as a representative for UNAIDS in Guyana, has obviously been compromised. We have shown CDC figures at page 5 of the online report “An Initial Critique of the National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) that illustrate that disease and child molestation defines the death-style that Prado and SASOD are sworn to protect, and to the extent that the gay population in the USA circa 1990 (1% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, he seems to wilfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhea, gonorrhea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites (in addition to the incidence of HIV) in Guyana. What are the facts for Guyana? In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control advocates that, contrary to popular media reports, MSM’s and bisexuals as a group are the most effective vehicle for the spread of HIV.

We had also shown in the online summary “Supporting ‘Gay Rights’ Laws would court legal disasters” (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/supporting-gay-rights-laws-would-court.html )

As a matter of principle, then, I call on Dr. Prado to indicate firmly that the views expressed in that article were indicative of his personal opinions only, and in no way reflect official UN Policy, or that of UNAIDS.

Any other position represents an anarchical attempt to seize Guyana’s soverignity, and must be resisted by government and opposition alike.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

May 26th 2008

Freud Did Think Homosexuality Was Disordered

Dear Editor,

Kissoon's letter (SN 5 20 08) is remarkable in its avoidance of the issues, and perpetuates a pattern of activist deception. The Christian and Biblical position is clear: It is the truth that sets persons free, so the initial effort towards this end was found in the article "Guyana's 1998 policy statement on people living with HIVAIDS adequately addresses nondiscrimination in the health sector" at http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14601 [July 2009 update: note that, for some strange reason, many past anti-gay-rights and pro-Christian.Israel articles are becoming unavailable at their original permalinks on the Stabroek News website, so this story can be located here].

As in an abortive attempt a few years ago, Kissoon's arguments now come down to justifying the homosexual condition and gay militancy on the basis of a "letter" by a noted psychiatrist, at age 79, written in freehand in an obviously reassuring tone to a frantic mother ...and without any repeat any reference to the clinical position that Freud himself advocated (we will address this later).

If this deception sounds familiar, it is. We remember a similar "letter" written by an American president to a group of churchmen illustrating that the government had no business interfering with their worship because of a constitutional "wall of separation". This letter was thereafter hijacked to undermine the same constitution altogether. This is the way with hoaxes. The latter from Freud, we may add, was only published 12 years after his death.

So, secondly, we should ask Kissoon why he chose to end Freud's “letter” (see the handwritten copy at http://www.truthtree.com/freud.shtml ) at that precise point in his own letter. He leaves out the last sentence, and the implications are enormous. Freud, as everywhere in his letter, hints at the possibility of change, and is also clear in his certainty that, like SASOD's and Kissoon's denial and desperation, the offer of psychological evaluation would be refused: "If you make up your mind that he should have analysis with me (I don't expect you will!!) he has to come over to Vienna. I have no intention of leaving here. However, don't neglect to give me your answer."

Implicit everywhere in that sentence is the possibility of change, and so Kissoon is dishonest to advocate that the "letter" shows that "Freud did not advocate homosexuality as disordered". This is poor reasoning and worse scholarship, and Kissoon and sasod must do the hard work and turn to Freud’s solid clinical and research evidence that is available. He also ignores Jung, Adler and the Bible. This is irresponsible.

But where does the average citizen begin to find this, and other, reliable information?

Again, we point readers, the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Health to Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s introductory treatment in the article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm ) and Ben Kaufman’s illuminating law review “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness” (14 REGENT U. L. REV. 423 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ). Nicolosi is unchallenged in his contention that Freud, Jung and Adler all saw homosexuality as disordered. Today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders simply because of pandering to "political correctness". Research simply stopped, except for NARTH and very brave researchers. The truth cannot be avoided.

The astonishing outcome, says Nicolosi, is that homosexuals who seek treatment for their condition are often denied help by psychologists and psychiatrists. This is the cruel endgame of Kissoon’s duplicity.

Finally, therefore, a ray of hope for those so affected (see page 8 of 20 in Dr Ben Kaufman's law review noted above). Kaufman concludes: "Numerous therapists, among them Berger, Bieber, Bergler, Caprio, Capron, Hadden, Kaye, Kronemeyer, Nicolosi, Rogers, Siegle, and Socarides, using a number of different forms of therapy, have reported successful treatment of persons experiencing same-sex attraction". In a comprehensive review of the literature on change, Warren Throckmorton challenges those who oppose therapy: "Narrowly, the question to be addressed is: Do conversion therapy techniques work to change unwanted sexual arousal? I submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no clients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors – that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches."

It is clear that Kissoon and sasod have deeply entrenched positions reflecting the gay-militant agenda, and would rather see persons suffer than benefit from change.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control advocates that, contrary to popular media reports, MSM’s and bisexuals as a group are the most effective vehicle for the spread of HIV (see the CDC report for 2004 on page 5 of the online article “An Initial Critique of the National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ). This evidence cannot be explained away.

We hope the body of evidence provided will correct perspectives on this issue.

Roger Williams
May 24th, 2008

Banning Bounty Killer and Movado: Season of Madness in Guyana

Publish Date: May 8, 2008.

Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2811353/Banning-Bounty-Killer-Movado-Season-of-madness-in-Guyana
The highlighted gold text shows the parts of the letter that were deleted by Stabroek News.

Dear Editor,

Guyana’s newest season of madness is at hand. How long will the brightest minds among us be silent? The noble aspirations of a maturing democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of less-than-subtle anti-Christian political positions and gay militancy!

Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, is unenvied in this mission. It must be no joy to find yourself catapulted to the dizzying heights of de-facto point-man for the effort.

In January 2007, Rohee accused Christians (yes, Christians en mass!) of being a “threat to national security” because of their open and clear opposition to casino gambling. The day after a local newspaper published a rebuttal and clarification to the effect that his claim was ridiculous, that newspaper had its quota of government advertisments withdrawn. Coincidence? The withdrawal has never been explained outside of peripheral references to “circulation” and no evidence in that regard was offered. The reinstatement appears to coincide with a new and very militant editorial policy at SN. In what direction? To what end?

Not to be outdone by his efforts of a few days earlier, Rohee thereafter joined his parliamentary colleague Desiree Fox in making the most atrocious statements against Christians on the casino gambling issue. A private Presidential “apology” and promise to the heads of the Christian Community that it would not happen again did not erase the refusal of both parliamentarians to apologize for their ridiculous statements. The comments still remain on the official record for parliament.

Gay militancy has in the past launched an unprecedented attack on Black artistes visiting Guyana, the clear message being that their opposition to homosexual criminality and deathstyle (see the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”) is to be silenced. This has usually meant that artistic licence has to be silenced, and Rohee has just accommodated that endeavour. The lesson of Stephanie Phillips’ article “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime” is ignored. And Ted Byfield’s account of Canadian Richard Kempling’s trial by terror in the name of human rights (“Only a few Defended the Teacher”) in of all places Canada falls on deaf ears. The story of Buju Banton (“Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth Part 2”) is a local illustration of the technique. Jamaican reggae superstars seem to be the only ones who dare to confront gay militancy these days!

Minister of Human Services Priya Manickchand in her otherwise noble effort at the “Stamp It Out” campaign against domestic and sexual violence, refuses to acknowledge the role that homosexuality, prostitution and pornography play in the violence against women and children. The Ministry considers these fundamental issues “too complex”, and apparently ignores the evidence of the vulnerability of Guyanese children at two local schools in the online article “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It out Consultation”.

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) is forced off Guyanese television after six socially positive years of broadcasting to Guyanese, and its rival Daystar follows a similar fate a few months after. Paradoxically, the Inter Religious Organization makes no comment denouncing the move, apparently accommodates and approves the most riotous music in its stead being played at this hour on STVS 21/72, and a querulous IRO-Chairman at a meeting called at Red House claims “not to see the relevance of an IRO statement for the reinstatement of TBN”. In the meantime, the same person is appointed to the executive of an “Inter Religious TV Channel”, following a “Presidential” direction. This is folly and recklessness inhabiting the same space.

The air is thick with rumour that a very public Christian Good Friday event in the centre of Georgetown’s business district was paid for by cheques issued from the Office of the President. Who organized this event? Who spoke at that forum? Can someone clarify /verify this?

Now Movado is accused of being a “security threat” for absolutely no reason, much as the church was in 2006, and Bounty Killer is vilified in the by now very pro-gay inserts and letter-licences in, of all newspapers, the Stabroek News.

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee on April 29 announces that “Bounty Killer is banned from the jurisdiction”. He offers no formal written statement for us to dissect, but leaves the justification for the obvious sabotage of Bounty Killer’s "Ignition Concert" is in no other place than the staff writers of Stabroek News, who unwittingly intertwine gay militant explanations to the unfortunate events of a night of sabotage amid lax security. They even manage to include the troubled black village of Buxton in the concoction, blaming it on Bounty Killer even after we know it was the local DJs that mouthed those unfortunate words.

Astonishingly, there is no public reprimand for the Police who fired shots into the air to make an already bad situation worse. No attempt was apparently made to arrest the bottle-throwers who were venting at the malfunctioning audio set.

The Stabroek News’ “The Scene” article of April 26 then relegates the press release by the promoters correcting the obvious inaccuracies in their previous report to pages 6C and 8C while its derogation of Bounty Killer gets Page 2C bold-face billing and cartoon. Is this the new direction of Stabroek News?

And 56% of the population still doesn’t get it! And the brightest and best in our country continue to say nothing!

And it’s all being done in the name of gay militancy! And Rohee offers himself up as chief facilitator to the feeding frenzy that will now follow. The Minister’s was an incredible (but by now familiar) over-reaction that pandered to the sentiments of the gay lobby. They will now claim to own his actions … and words. And you will find no local newspaper editorial, or “The Scene” article, advocating the online law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement”, or advocating that it is child molestation, pedophilia and pornography that need to be banned in Guyana. The Home Affairs Minister does NOT list these as the crimes against that Guyanese people that he is working on. Now gay militancy leads worldwide efforts in this regard.

Bounty Killer and Movado were just easy targets for the Home Affairs Minister, much as the church was in 2007.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

May 5, 2008

Season of madness: Banning Bounty Killer & Movado, invoking "security threats" and accommodating gay militancy!

Publish Date: May 8, 2008.

Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2758952/Season-of-madness-Banning-Bounty-Killer-Movado-invoking-security-threats-and-accommodating-gay-militancy-in-Guyana

The highlighted gold text shows the parts of the letter that were deleted by Stabroek News.

Dear Editor,

Guyana’s newest season of madness is at hand. How long will the brightest minds among us be silent? The noble aspirations of a maturing democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of less-than-subtle anti-Christian political positions and gay militancy!

Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, is unenvied in this mission. It must be no joy to find yourself catapulted to the dizzying heights of de-facto point-man for the effort.

In January 2007, Rohee accused Christians (yes, Christians en mass!) of being a “threat to national security” because of their open and clear opposition to casino gambling. The day after a local newspaper published a rebuttal and clarification to the effect that his claim was ridiculous, that newspaper had its quota of government advertisments withdrawn. Coincidence? The withdrawal has never been explained outside of peripheral references to “circulation” and no evidence in that regard was offered. The reinstatement appears to coincide with a new and very militant editorial policy at SN. In what direction? To what end?

Not to be outdone by his efforts of a few days earlier, Rohee thereafter joined his parliamentary colleague Desiree Fox in making the most atrocious statements against Christians on the casino gambling issue. A private Presidential “apology” and promise to the heads of the Christian Community that it would not happen again did not erase the refusal of both parliamentarians to apologize for their ridiculous statements. The comments still remain on the official record for parliament.

Gay militancy has in the past launched an unprecedented attack on Black artistes visiting Guyana, the clear message being that their opposition to homosexual criminality and deathstyle (see the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”) is to be silenced. This has usually meant that artistic licence has to be silenced, and Rohee has just accommodated that endeavour. The lesson of Stephanie Phillips’ article “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime” is ignored. And Ted Byfield’s account of Canadian Richard Kempling’s trial by terror in the name of human rights (“Only a few Defended the Teacher”) in of all places Canada falls on deaf ears. The story of Buju Banton (“Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth Part 2”) is a local illustration of the technique. Jamaican reggae superstars seem to be the only ones who dare to confront gay militancy these days!

Minister of Social Services Priya Manickchand in her otherwise noble effort at the “Stamp It Out” campaign against domestic and sexual violence, refuses to acknowledge the role that homosexuality, prostitution and pornography play in the violence against women and children. The Ministry considers these fundamental issues “too complex”, and apparently ignores the evidence of the vulnerability of Guyanese children at two local schools in the online article “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It out Consultation”.

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) is forced off Guyanese television after six socially positive years of broadcasting to Guyanese, and its rival Daystar follows a similar fate a few months after. Paradoxically, the Inter Religious Organization makes no comment denouncing the move, apparently accommodates and approves the most riotous music in its stead being played at this hour on STVS 21/72, and a querulous IRO-Chairman at a meeting called at Red House claims “not to see the relevance of an IRO statement for the reinstatement of TBN”. In the meantime, the same person is appointed to the executive of an “Inter Religious TV Channel”, following a “Presidential” direction. This is folly and recklessness inhabiting the same space.

The air is thick with rumour that a very public Christian Good Friday event in the centre of Georgetown’s business district was paid for by cheques issued from the Office of the President. Who organized this event? Who spoke at that forum? Can someone clarify /verify this?

Now Movado is accused of being a “security threat” for absolutely no reason, much as the church was in 2006, and Bounty Killer is vilified in the by now very pro-gay inserts and letter-licences in, of all newspapers, the Stabroek News.

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee on April 29 announces that “Bounty Killer is banned from the jurisdiction”. He offers no formal written statement for us to dissect, but leaves the justification for the obvious sabotage of Bounty Killer’s "Ignition Concert" is in no other place than the staff writers of Stabroek News, who unwittingly intertwine gay militant explanations to the unfortunate events of a night of sabotage amid lax security. They even manage to include the troubled black village of Buxton in the concoction, blaming it on Bounty Killer even after we know it was the local DJs that mouthed those unfortunate words.

Astonishingly, there is no public reprimand for the Police who fired shots into the air to make an already bad situation worse. No attempt was apparently made to arrest the bottle-throwers who were venting at the malfunctioning audio set.

The Stabroek News’ “The Scene” article of April 26 then relegates the press release by the promoters correcting the obvious inaccuracies in their previous report to pages 6C and 8C while its derogation of Bounty Killer gets Page 2C bold-face billing and cartoon. Is this the new direction of Stabroek News?

And 56% of the population still doesn’t get it! And the brightest and best in our country continue to say nothing!

And it’s all being done in the name of gay militancy! And Rohee offers himself up as chief facilitator to the feeding frenzy that will now follow. The Minister’s was an incredible (but by now familiar) over-reaction that pandered to the sentiments of the gay lobby. They will now claim to own his actions … and words. And you will find no local newspaper editorial, or “The Scene” article, advocating the online law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement”, or advocating that it is child molestation, pedophilia and pornography that need to be banned in Guyana. The Home Affairs Minister does NOT list these as the crimes against that Guyanese people that he is working on. Now gay militancy leads worldwide efforts in this regard.

Bounty Killer and Movado were just easy targets for the Home Affairs Minister, much as the church was in 2007.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
May 5, 2008

Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality

The online article "Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality", formerly found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/8387665/Arguments-Against-Pancap-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality, can now be found at the following locations:

1. http://www.esnips.com/doc/8e2963b1-92f4-4b9e-b68f-2306587109a5/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-PANCAP-AND-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY

2.

3.

Alternatively, readers can post messages to this board (with their e-mail addresses) requesting copies. I will respond as quickly as possible.

Arguments Against the Decriminalization of Homosexuality

The online article "Arguments Against the Decriminalization of Homosexuality", formerly found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/8621777/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY , is now found at the following locations:

1. http://www.esnips.com/doc/8338517b-8958-4fb9-bc08-734be3328b19/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY

2.

3.

Alternatively, readers can post messages at this site (with their e-mail addresses) requesting .pdf copies. I will respond as quickly as I can.

Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth: Why Buju Banton’s song irks Gay Militant Activists!

Context:

Gay militancy in Guyana has been frantic in October 2007 trying to propagandize Buju (Boom Bye Bye) Banton's "homophobia'. The evidence shows, however, that Buju has nothing to apologize for!

Dear Editor,

Recently, the popular website www.jamaicans.com featured advertisments about the upcoming Guyana Music Festival (October 27) in which some of Jamaica’s most outstanding musical sons would have participated.

Many members of the Guyanese gay-militant community, labouring under nebulous identities like "SASOD Members" and various unsigned letters in the Guyana press, have been frantic in the past month in their effort to propagandize the Festival, and Buju Banton, as “homophobic”. I would appreciate the opportunity to rebut on behalf of all the fans of Buju Banton, Beenie Man, and Christians generally.

I again submit that SASOD and gay militancy represents more of a clear and present danger to Caribbean democracy than Buju Banton and his lyrics ever will. There is another, more sinister, connotation to be adduced in terms of the wider cultural/racial issues that seethes just below the surface (or under the rug) of contemporary social debate in the Caribbean, but this has been better addressed in two other online articles: “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter” and “Efforts to rationalize Hindu Nationalist Racism in Guyana and the Caribbean”. Who, exactly, we may ask, are the members of “SASOD”?

Indeed, Buju Banton ought to be commended for his outspoken position in “Boom Bye Bye”, even though it was written many years ago, and even as he may be unaware of the stunning scientific evidence supporting him.

Using the occasion of the “Guyana Music Festival”, SASOD's newest (but not unexpected) effort at destabilizing morality and the existing criminal law in Guyana is the ad hominem argument, in which sanctimonious outbursts are being used to appeal to sympathy, each occasion typified by a deliberate avoidance of anything factual that refutes their arguments. The "advice" given to the government in these letters is similarly deficient.

Christians and Caribbean citizens generally must now return to the facts, and offer the Minister of Home Affairs, the Police Commissioner, the Ministry of Culture, and the Governments of Guyana and Jamaica more meaningful information that will inform their discernment of who the real criminals are:

1. The recommendations by SASOD and others to restrict civil liberties like the right to freedom of expression, the right to work, and the freedom of association are typical of the action that gay militancy are now using to silence the opposition at any costs. The issue is adequately covered at sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 in the online article: "Annex A: An initial critique of Guyana's National Assessment" at www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf .

2. SASOD's is therefore a callous and cruel approach, since it indicates a willingness to sacrifice lives in protecting two activities (sodomy/homosexuality) that are medically dangerous, morally repugnant, disease ridden, whose population form a major risk factor for disease transmission in tandem with the bisexual cross over to the heterosexual population, and whose population has historically had a disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of syphilis, gonorrhoea, rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. (Kate Leishman, "AIDS and Syphilis", The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21; E. Rowe, Homosexual Politics, CLA, 1984, , 17; P. Buchanan and J. Muir, "Gay Times and Diseases", The American Spectator, August 1984, 15-18; L. Corey and A. Holmes, "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men", New England Journal Of Medicine 302 1980 435-8; Gerald Mandell et al., eds., Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley 1990, 2280-84; J. Kassler, Gay Men's Health, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, 38; … as quoted in Roger Magnuson’s “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!")

The gay-militant community in activist-states has always tried to seize the health sector because of the above.

3. Dr. Judith Reisman, famous for her complete and thorough debunking of Alfred Kinsey's premises on human sexuality, including an expose' of his sexual torture of children to get his "results", has covered in generous detail the reality of the effort that is being used to indoctrinate the youthful population by SASOD and its affiliates. Her online law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth” is found at 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002) http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.PDF.

She also introduces in that review the medical, statistical, legal and factual linkage between homosexuality and paedophilia. The implications are disturbing, especially her astonishing reminder on page 22 of the law review that:

".... To hide the fact that most AIDS children appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the World AIDS Day artfully reports that 16% of adolescents with AIDS aged 13 thru 19 … have been infected through heterosexual contact, rather than 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sexual abuse...."

Sounds familiar? What are the facts for Guyana, and the wider Caribbean? What does the "fact" of "60% under-reporting" make of the MOH/CDC claim that HIV-transmission in Guyana is spread "mainly" through heterosexual sex?

4. Dr. Steve Baldwin, in his definitive online law review "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" (14 REGENT U. L. REV.267 (2002): http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF) addresses the issue in greater detail.

What are the facts for molestation and disease directly related to the homosexual population in Guyana and the wider Caribbean, and the bisexual crossover? If SASOD would have its way, there would never be any quoted in these debates, and that for them would be a most satisfactory state of affairs. “Boom Bye Bye”, unfortunately, bursts that bubble with its inconvenient truth.

It is therefore a medical, legal, social and actual fact that SASOD and gay militancy represents more of a clear and present danger to Caribbean democracy than Buju Banton and his lyrics ever will. We ignore at our peril the subtle attack on democratic liberties, sound epidemiological responses, and the current criminal/employment law being peddled by special-interest gay-militant groups in the Caribbean. The Bible urges us to buy the truth and sell it not, so our choice is clear.

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams

28 October, 2007

A Rebuttal of Vikram Seth's and Amartya Sen's Position on Gay Rights

Dear Editor,

I refer to Vickram Seth’s “open letter” and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Copies are being sent to Amartya Sen, Vickram Seth and as many others of the signatories of their “open letter” as possible, and the organizations they represent.

It is the truth that sets persons free.

Seth and Sen ignore the evidence in law reviews that homosexual and bisexual activity is medically, socially and personally destructive, and that the defence of these behaviours has usually meant that detractors are silenced, and that statistical, medical, legal and academic/research evidence is just simply ignored. There is another, more sinister outcome possible for parliamentary democracy in India, adequately alluded to by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail article of September 7, 2006: "How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime!" ( http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 ).

The “open letter” by Seth et al, and the “support” by Sen, is couched in the vague, amorphous, and emotion-dripping syrup of the “rights” arguments, and ignores the plea by at least one research scientist that science, not emotion, should inform the debate.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover (“Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”; Hamilton Press; 1996) confides that in conference with groups like Seth’s and Sen’s - the denial was so intense that self-examination was entirely precluded. I referred to this anomaly in the online initial critique of Arif Bulkan's “National Assessment on HIV/AIDS Human Rights, Law and Ethics in Guyana” ( www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) when pondering the absence of a doctor's opinion from the 'assessment' in the Guyana context.

There is a therefore a criminal irresponsibility in Seth’s and Sen’s refusal to address the Indian epidemic of HIV/AIDS from standard epidemiological terms of reference, as medical doctors must, instead opting for a 'rights-based' point of view.

There is not a single medical doctor in the entourage that “supports” Seth’s “open letter”. If there was, they took great pains to hide the fact, and that alone bespeaks of a similar degree of criminal irresponsibility. SASOD, like Seth, has by now achieved competence in the art of propaganda, and carefully pads local advocacy for Seth’s position with the words “… the other signatories come from diverse walks of life, and include academics, public servants, politicians, lawyers, artists, soldiers, religious leaders, social activists and business people.” In the context of the worldwide and Indian epidemics of HIV/AIDS, this is tantamount to criminal negligence and mischief in leading their “flock” astray.

Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy"; Multhnomah Press) on pages 48-52, illustrates some of the medical evidence and authority that Seth and Sen must acknowledge in the process of being responsible for promulgating the “sexual orientation” argument.

● Homosexuals and bisexuals release both disease and crime into society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. The connection between homosexuality and ill health has been underscored as recently as 2004 in the CDC's HIV report (page 5 of the online critique, or e-mail RogerWilli@Yahoo.com for copies).

● One survey revealed that 78% of homosexuals have been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease, and that a large number of them have been afflicted with illnesses such as urethritis, hepatitis, herpes, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● In the USA, ninety percent of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes virus, CMV, and hepatitis B. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● During the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500% '. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

See pages 7-8 in the online article "Annex A: An initial Critique of the National Assessment" at the URL: www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics/national_assessment.pdf for Roger Magnuson’s treatment of the legal pitfalls and perils that accompany “sexual orientation” considerations. There is fertile ground here for legal rebuttal to Seth’s deception.

The legal issues should at the very least not displace prudent medical or epidemiological responses. That would be irresponsible in the face of an epidemic, one indicator for Guyana being the report in the Kaieteur News of October 24th 2004 advising that eight out of every ten blood-donors in Region Three (one of 10 administrative districts in Guyana) are tested positive for HIV. What are the facts for India?

Guyana is therefore in the middle of an epidemic of HIV/AIDS, and it would be safe to say that with a population of about 750,000, a total infection episode would be imminent if the solid protection provided by current laws were laid aside as people like SASOD and Seth advocate. Guyana, Suriname and Haiti share the highest levels of seroprevalence in the region, similar to levels in Southern Africa.

Homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong. Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier have dealt conclusively with the attendant issues in the article “Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right” at http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html . Rabbi Eidensohn’s critique of the Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Act (SONDA) outlines the perilous intrigue of deception we court in democracies as we are seduced and hoodwinked by gay militancy ( http://www.sinaicentral.com/gendercentral/CritiqueSONDAS720_120202.htm ). Readers should also peruse the article http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT02G1 entitled “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Children's Sexual Exploitation “. SASOD’s stated intention in its letter to have “joined with other interest groups to call for the urgent reform of the legislation to improve the access to justice for victims of sexual violence, especially child victims” is disingenuous at best, and hypocritical in the extreme.

I should now voice some scholarly concern that SASOD’s, and Seth’s, experience in research in this area did not mandate a comment on any of the numerous medical issues and commentaries that are available on the subject. For example, the following comment in the first paragraph of page 2 of 16 of the review by Dr. Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002 ) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists in the Caribbean and India.

".... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters", 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin's review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent...."

Perhaps the most interesting point in the SASOD letter to Stabroek News is the outright confession that their target is the repeal of “sodomy laws”. In the past, they have delicately sidestepped this claim, and Dr. Marcus Day made an abortive attempt on their behalf to fashion an argument that “homosexual men don’t necessarily commit sodomy”. He quickly withdrew after being challenged. As it was then, this argument remains specious and puerile, and does not reflect serious scholarship. Sodomy defines homosexuality, and a liberal sexual environment ensures bisexual crossover and acceptance in the heterosexual population, particularly where education on sexual issues is deficient or biased in favour of gay militancy.

Regarding anal intercourse, either heterosexual or homosexual, Vickram Seth and Amartya Sen should appreciate and promote as fact to both populations that anal intercourse must be condemned for what it is, a medically dangerous activity that happens to facilitate the most virulent transmission of HIV, and that is condemned by no less a person than the Surgeon General of the USA:

"The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239)

David Ostrow et al has gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage:

".... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections...."

Dr Day's (and now SASOD, Seth’s and Sen’s) avoidance of these facts has in the past been particularly disturbing, as is his deferral on the issue that sodomy defines homosexuality, and to the extent that the gay population in the USA circa 1990 (1% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, he seems to willfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites in addition to the incidence of HIV. As a responsible research scientist, the only question that should occupy Dr. Day's mind at this time is: What are the facts for Guyana? India?

Surely, even if 50% of a deviant population engages in a disease-ridden activity we should consider the medical and social implications with the seriousness it deserves.

The Encyclopedia Britannica now classifies "sodomy" as including bestiality, and no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Vikram Seth’s arguments:

".... But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being...."

At the same time, every reader should read Ty Clevenger's law review: "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy" 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc ). This would explain why some research scientists are trying to redefine "marriage", "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction disorders" … using percentages. Seth needs no “facts” for his “open” letter. He uses his name, star power, and his followers’ gullibility!

Perhaps the final word that will address these issues belongs to David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review series:

".... So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia...."

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams

September 26, 2006

A Response To Vikram Seth's Open Letter

Dear Editor,

I refer to Vickram Seth’s “open letter” and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Copies are being sent to Amartya Sen, Vickram Seth and as many others of the signatories of their “open letter” as possible, and the organizations they represent.

It is the truth that sets persons free.

Seth and Sen ignore the evidence in law reviews that homosexual and bisexual activity is medically, socially and personally destructive, and that the defence of these behaviours has usually meant that detractors are silenced, and that statistical, medical, legal and academic/research evidence is just simply ignored. There is another, more sinister outcome possible for parliamentary democracy in India, adequately alluded to by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail article of September 7, 2006: "How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime!" ( http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 ).

The “open letter” by Seth et al, and the “support” by Sen, is couched in the vague, amorphous, and emotion-dripping syrup of the “rights” arguments, and ignores the plea by at least one research scientist that science, not emotion, should inform the debate.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover (“Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”; Hamilton Press; 1996) confides that in conference with groups like Seth’s and Sen’s - the denial was so intense that self-examination was entirely precluded. I referred to this anomaly in the online initial critique of Arif Bulkan's “National Assessment on HIV/AIDS Human Rights, Law and Ethics in Guyana” ( www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) when pondering the absence of a doctor's opinion from the 'assessment' in the Guyana context.

There is a therefore a criminal irresponsibility in Seth’s and Sen’s refusal to address the Indian epidemic of HIV/AIDS from standard epidemiological terms of reference, as medical doctors must, instead opting for a 'rights-based' point of view.

There is not a single medical doctor in the entourage that “supports” Seth’s “open letter”. If there was, they took great pains to hide the fact, and that alone bespeaks of a similar degree of criminal irresponsibility. SASOD, like Seth, has by now achieved competence in the art of propaganda, and carefully pads local advocacy for Seth’s position with the words “… the other signatories come from diverse walks of life, and include academics, public servants, politicians, lawyers, artists, soldiers, religious leaders, social activists and business people.” In the context of the worldwide and Indian epidemics of HIV/AIDS, this is tantamount to criminal negligence and mischief in leading their “flock” astray.

Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”; Multhnomah Press) on pages 48-52, illustrates some of the medical evidence and authority that Seth and Sen must acknowledge in the process of being responsible for promulgating the “sexual orientation” argument.

● Homosexuals and bisexuals release both disease and crime into society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. The connection between homosexuality and ill health has been underscored as recently as 2004 in the CDC's HIV report (page 5 of the online critique, or e-mail RogerWilli@Yahoo.com for copies).

● One survey revealed that 78% of homosexuals have been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease, and that a large number of them have been afflicted with illnesses such as urethritis, hepatitis, herpes, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● In the USA, ninety percent of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes virus, CMV, and hepatitis B. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● During the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500% '. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

See pages 7-8 in the online article "Annex A: An initial Critique of the National Assessment" at the URL: www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics/national_assessment.pdf for Roger Magnuson’s treatment of the legal pitfalls and perils that accompany “sexual orientation” considerations. There is fertile ground here for legal rebuttal to Seth’s deception.

The legal issues should at the very least not displace prudent medical or epidemiological responses. That would be irresponsible in the face of an epidemic, one indicator for Guyana being the report in the Kaieteur News of October 24th 2004 advising that eight out of every ten blood-donors in Region Three (one of 10 administrative districts in Guyana) are tested positive for HIV. What are the facts for India?

Guyana is therefore in the middle of an epidemic of HIV/AIDS, and it would be safe to say that with a population of about 750,000, a total infection episode would be imminent if the solid protection provided by current laws were laid aside as people like SASOD and Seth advocate. Guyana, Suriname and Haiti share the highest levels of seroprevalence in the region, similar to levels in Southern Africa.

Homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong. Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier have dealt conclusively with the attendant issues in the article “Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right” at http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html . Rabbi Eidensohn’s critique of the Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Act (SONDA) outlines the perilous intrigue of deception we court in democracies as we are seduced and hoodwinked by gay militancy ( http://www.sinaicentral.com/gendercentral/CritiqueSONDAS720_120202.htm ). Readers should also peruse the article http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT02G1 entitled “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Children's Sexual Exploitation “. SASOD’s stated intention in its letter to have “joined with other interest groups to call for the urgent reform of the legislation to improve the access to justice for victims of sexual violence, especially child victims” is disingenuous at best, and hypocritical in the extreme.

I should now voice some scholarly concern that SASOD’s, and Seth’s, experience in research in this area did not mandate a comment on any of the numerous medical issues and commentaries that are available on the subject. For example, the following comment in the first paragraph of page 2 of 16 of the review by Dr. Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement":( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002 ) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists in the Caribbean and India.

"....Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin's review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent...."

Perhaps the most interesting point in the SASOD letter to Stabroek News is the outright confession that their target is the repeal of “sodomy laws”. In the past, they have delicately sidestepped this claim, and Dr. Marcus Day made an abortive attempt on their behalf to fashion an argument that “homosexual men don’t necessarily commit sodomy”. He quickly withdrew after being challenged. As it was then, this argument remains specious and puerile, and does not reflect serious scholarship. Sodomy defines homosexuality, and a liberal sexual environment ensures bisexual crossover and acceptance in the heterosexual population, particularly where education on sexual issues is deficient or biased in favour of gay militancy.

Regarding anal intercourse, either heterosexual or homosexual, Vickram Seth and Amartya Sen should appreciate and promote as fact to both populations that anal intercourse must be condemned for what it is, a medically dangerous activity that happens to facilitate the most virulent transmission of HIV, and that is condemned by no less a person than the Surgeon General of the USA:

"The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239)

David Ostrow et al has gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage:

".... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections...."

Dr Day's (and now SASOD, Seth’s and Sen’s) avoidance of these facts has in the past been particularly disturbing, as is his deferral on the issue that sodomy defines homosexuality, and to the extent that the gay population in the USA circa 1990 (1% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, he seems to willfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites in addition to the incidence of HIV. As a responsible research scientist, the only question that should occupy Dr. Day's mind at this time is: What are the facts for Guyana? India?

Surely, even if 50% of a deviant population engages in a disease-ridden activity we should consider the medical and social implications with the seriousness it deserves.

The Encyclopedia Britannica now classifies "sodomy" as including bestiality, and no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Vikram Seth’s arguments:

"But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being"

At the same time, every reader should read Ty Clevenger's law review: "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy" 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc ). This would explain why some research scientists are trying to redefine "marriage", "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction disorders" … using percentages. Seth needs no “facts” for his “open” letter. He uses his name, star power, and his followers’ gullibility!

Perhaps the final word that will address these issues belongs to David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review series:

"So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia."

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams

September 26, 2006