Dear Editor,
One year ago (Feb. 15, 2010) we had cause to write the local and regional press with the appropriately captioned story "Cross-dressing and GBLT deception and manipulation have to be addressed by the judiciary". The edited version was posted by Stabroek News at its website as "Sasod Should be Rejected Yet Again" ( http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/02/17/sasod-should-be-rejected-yet-again/ ) on February 17, 2009. Nothing has since changed!
One year later, Stabroek news now carries the unfortunate story with the triumphant-sounding caption "Historic Constitutional Motion Filed Against Cross-dressing Law" ( http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/stories/02/23/historic-constitutional-motion-filed-against-cross-dressing-law/ )
But there is nothing "historic" about this development, except the tragedy in deception and manipulation that it inevitably represents. The tactic to try to use the courts to circumvent the will of the people through the voting/referendum process is not new.
The really uplifting moment in the debate one year ago came when Noleander Toussaint, a 17-year old student, pronounced definitively on the issue in the article "What the People say about Cross-dressing being an offence" ( http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/features/02/16/what-the-people-say-about-cross-dressing-being-an-offence/
We have offered before that there is proximity between transgender (cross-dressing) and homosexual issues, hence the nomenclature “GBLT community”. The activity of the one group inevitably becomes the “opportunity” for the other! Guyana’s courts should be in no doubt about who or what sasod is promoting in this case! It is not just “cross-dressing” that sasod is addressing, it is trying to gain a toe-hold of legal ground to represent gay, bi-sexual, lesbian and transgender issues.
So we have sent the online summary "The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality" ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality ) as a friend-of-the-court brief to the Guyana bar Association, the Bar associations of every territory in CARICOM, the Attorney General in Guyana, and the Attorneys-General in CARICOM.
The letter of February 2009 is repeated verbatim below, and it should be noted that its principal arguments remain unchallenged by sasod or any sector of a complicit media.
"... The Stabroek News headlines its Sunday February 15th edition with the claim “Cross-dressing case points to ‘selective discrimination – law should be repealed, SASOD says “. I would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. We should be relentless in the effort to present to the Guyanese public the formidable evidence stacked against sasod.
Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson’s general perspective is being roundly supported by those who appreciate the overwhelming evidence. Further, whereas her detractors are citing hot air and precious little else, the evidence in recent (2002) law reviews supports her conservative outlook.
The law DOES exist for good social, moral, legal and societal reasons … and those relating to sexual offences and improper conduct have not been invalidated by the passage of time. The Guyanese people, and Melissa Robertson, will find that science, and the law, is very clear relative to the debate that will follow.
The feeding frenzy initiated by SN’s careless caption in the main ignored the negative social policy implications of sasod’s arguments. The evidence offered in part below will support an inevitable conclusion: A behaviour-based group masquerading as a “minority” cannot usurp the value-system of entire nations without challenge. Lawyer Roger Magnuson makes the undisputed point: " …. The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists ... merit and demand serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate…." (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”, p. 137)
Readers will find that the only reasoned statement the SN-article seems to be that of Priya Manickchand, who, in an abundance of caution, appears to urge nothing less than a referendum addressing the question: “Given the legal, social and moral evidence to the contrary, does Guyana really want to follow the trajectory of tragedy other nations have taken regarding gay militancy and “sexual orientation”?”
It is clear that mere brio and hot emotion will not settle this issue, and Christians and other Guyanese will be pleased to find that the secular evidence supports their religious/moral positions. On the other hand, the arguments of gay militancy are suffused with deception and a cruel agenda to manipulate those trapped in Same-Sex Attraction Disorders. Readers have immediate access to three sources for a quick introduction to the issues:
First reading should be Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia’s treatment “Homosexuality is not a Civil Right” ( http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ). The following excerpt is instructive:
“…. When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting “rights” to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement….”
“…. Essential to the homosexual agenda is the idea that homosexuals are fighting for basic civil rights denied them by an oppressive society. This argument strikes a sympathetic chord among many Americans, whose decency and sense of fair play demand that all people be treated fairly. However, a closer look at the truth about homosexuality and the political goals of the “gay rights” movement shows that homosexuals are not an oppressed minority, that opposition to special legal protection for homosexuality is not bigotry, and that extending such protection is dangerous to individuals and society….”
Secondly, readers should realize that Guyana and the Caribbean recently dodged the bullet regarding the “decriminalization” craze that is currently being forcefully argued by gay militancy around the world. There seems to be an abysmal ignorance of the truth regarding the destructive social policy implications involved in these efforts, and we must start the debate now. Readers should assess the article “Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality ). Sasod’s puerile arguments about the “victimless” nature of “sexual orientation” cases is dealt with at pages 21,23 and 24. Read also the dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia on pages 25-35. In particular, the following comments should be helpful:
“….“This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review….” (Scalia, J. dissenting at page 30 above)
“…. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people ….” (Scalia, J. dissenting at page 32 above)
Finally, almost unnoticed by the Guyanese voting public, Guyana ’s Permanent Representative to the OAS, Dennis Moses, made an astonishing vote on June 3 2008 “on behalf of the Guyanese people”. The incredible fact here is that all Christian and conservative groups were banned from lobbying the politicians at the OAS-event, and, despite up to four requests to respond to the article “Response to OAS and PANCAP on Sexual Orientation and Decriminalizing Homosexuality and Prostitution” ( http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-oas-resolution-on-human.html ), neither Dennis Moses nor the OAS has responded to the issues raised therein.
An elitist snobbery seems to have replaced concern for the people’s questions in regional institutions. This is no substitute for good social policy. Instead of recommending repeal of very pertinent legislation, the Chief Magistrate should order prosecution and defence to prepare a judicial review of the 2002 law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” (by Steve Baldwin. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002, http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc ) and other such current reviews cited at page 18 of “Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” . This would clear the air appreciably.
Magistrate Robertson would be pleased to find that her comments about “confusion” are also raised in the psychiatric community. She should peruse the 2001-article by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi: “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.cssronline.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf . An excerpt follows:
“….To some, this approach may sound reactionary and anti-gay, antisexual, anti-freedom. Rather, for those men who seek an alternative to the gay lifestyle, this is progressive treatment. Indeed, many men have found these ideas to reflect a truth they sense within themselves. This approach acknowledges the value of gender difference, the worth of family and traditional social values, and the importance of the prevention of gender confusion in children….”
Sasod and their supporters would, again, be found to be actively trying to deceive the Guyanese people. They should be rejected yet again...."
Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
February 25, 2010
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Indian High Court’s Decision Was Wrong
This is the unedited version of the letter "Indian High Court’s decision was wrong appearing in the Stabroek News of July 9, 2009.
Dear Editor,
The letter “Restoring Dignity of Men and Women” by Michel Sidibe' (Kaieteur News 8/7/09; Stabroek News 7/7/09 captioned "UNAIDS Applauds the Decision of India's High Court" ) is disturbing in its whimsical disregard for science, medicine, the extant law, and the truth. It can be rebutted on several distinct grounds, each of which illustrates that Sidibe' has taken the unprofessional step of arguing his case with innuendo rather than fact. In taking the opposite posture, our approach offers the detail and evidence that all citizens need to make responsible personal and corporate decisions.
First, we had aggressively rebutted Sidibe’s colleague Ruben del Prado’s similar outburst one year ago with the aptly captioned "A Departure From Professional Conduct"; http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2026-05-08.html. There, in a fanciful fascination with the “Yogyagakarta Principles”, del Prado had made the similar mistake of implying that there were not good medical, legal, moral and societal reasons for criminalizing homosexuality. The arguments to the contrary in “A Departure from Professional Conduct” still hold, and, if you look closely, Sidibe has carefully sidestepped every one of them.
The first, and obvious response to Sidibe is that most PLWHA-treatment in Guyana and the Caribbean is anonymous anyway, and that the focus of any effective epidemiological response needs to be behaviour modification, not accommodation!
Second, there is a geo-political thrust to Sidibe’s arguments, having nothing to do with HIV/AIDS. For Sidibe, then, India’s activist High Court ruling, sure to be challenged, represents a shot in the arm for the now-tired arguments usually spawned by gay militancy and a recklessly unprofessional confederacy of its supporters in the UN ….anxious for any “victory” after the astonishing defeat to opponents of Proposition 8 in the USA (see “Why Proposition 8 will Stand in 2010”; http://www.esnips.com/web/Proposition8 ). There, the people simply got fed up with “court decisions” that pilfered their traditional values and democratic principles, and voted down yet another effort to redefine marriage, this being the holy grail of the “decriminalization” crowd. We had hopefully addressed some of the issues in the online article “The OAS Resolutionson Sexual Orientation Do Not Reflect the Will of the people of the Region” (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/06/13/oas-resolutions-on-sexual-orientation-do-not-reflect-the-will-of-the-citizens-of-the-region ). The caption of this article was not accidental, since, with the threat of democratic opposition-action at the grassroots, an entire swathe of gay-rights “victories” are being engineered NOT in the polls where the people have a voice, but in activist courts and legislatures, and by executive order. This is slap in the face for voters, and it is all being done in the name of “human rights!
Thirdly, if we were casting our net wide with references to the geo-politics defined by the “OAS” and the “UN” in response to Sidibe, it will surely come as a surprise to readers/voters in Guyana and the Caribbean that the specious argumentation being resuscitated by Sidibe was in fact peddled in selfsame short-measure by CARICOM’s PANCAP as recently as 2008. Hopefully, we had provided Guyana and the Caribbean with enough material in the online summary “Arguments Against Pancap and rthe Decriminalization of Homosexuality” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/8e2963b1-92f4-4b9e-b68f-2306587109a5/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-PANCAP-AND-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY ) to show the error of that particular effort.
It gets worse. What do current US-indicators tell us about this “glorious” development in India ? Sidibe' denies the fact of MRSA infection, and its affinity 19 times greater for homosexual populations. David Ostrow is in no doubt, however, and shares why the OAS, the UN and PANCAP must now be equally "fascinated" with behaviour modification rather than “behaviour accommodation”: “…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…." (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”, New York, Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982). Note … the science has not changed in from then to 2009, only Sidibe’s rhetoric. He denies a gigantic paradox ... that homosexuality therefore needs entire medical brigades to justify its political space under decriminalization, thereby also explaining why gay-militant activity in activist countries has always targeted the health sector, or its Ministers. But medical fact does not supplant "human rights" in Sidibe's world.
Sidibe' is careful to point out that his, and UNAIDS’, motives lie in the “fight against HIV/AIDS”. To the extent that a key strategy of the gay-rights and gay-militant lobby has always been to blur and confuse the lines between the legitimate needs of PLWHA and “securing” gay rights, then Sidibe’s comments are disingenuous.
Jusith Reisman, who destroyed Kinsey’s abysmal outlook on human sexuality, documents the devious ploy by gay activists to “use” HIV/AIDS” as a “marketing tool” to achieve their political goals. Sidibe’s education in this regard should begin by noting the words of homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined in the law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ): "... According to Kirk and Madsen, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority ...." Reisman goes on …“... 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 through 19 . . . have been infected through heterosexual contact…,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sex abuse. To place this grievous medical sleight-of-hand in perspective, Kate Leishman reports that in 1988, though representing less than 5% of the U.S. population, “…. homosexuals were responsible for 50% of the nation’s cases of syphilis and a “phenomenal incidence of venereal disease…” ( Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21).
The point again? Homosexuality NEEDS medical brigades to justify its space, and THAT’s a valid enough reason for criminalization. And we have not even addressed the Biblical perspective as yet, or links to psychosexual violence and pedophilia!
The final words defining Sidibe’s caricature of the Indian High Court ruling, then, belong to lawyer Roger J Magnuson. These words would constitute important advice for unsuspecting, naïve third world populations infatuated with UN rhetoric”:
"…. The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists ... merit and demand serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate…." ( Roger Magnuson; "Are Gay Rights Right? making Sense of the Controversy!", p. 137).
Magnuson would go on to document that “… 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% ....” CDC 2004 figures show remarkably consistent HIV infection rates among MSM, in glaring counterpoint to Sidibe's figures.
What are the facts for the Caribbean? India? What can we reasonably expect with decriminalization? If the above does not constitute valid reasons for the criminalization of a psychosexual disorder that manifests itself in socially and personally destructive ways, then what does?
Decriminalization accommodates a slow but fatalistic degeneracy where everyone loses. And an Indian High Court bought it … hook, line and sinker!
Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
8th July 2009
8th July 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Guyana’s 1998 Policy Statement on People Living With HIV/AIDS Adequately Addresses Non-discriminatio in the Health Sector
Post Date: May 24th 2008
Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3038085/Guyanas-1998-policy-statement-on-people-living-with-HIVAIDS-adequately-addresses-nondiscrimination-in-the-health-sector
Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3038085/Guyanas-1998-policy-statement-on-people-living-with-HIVAIDS-adequately-addresses-nondiscrimination-in-the-health-sector
Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter by Joel Simpson et al (SN 5/17/08) advocating “anti-homophobia” training and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. The letter is disturbing in many of the issues it pretends to raise.
A phobia is defined as an “irrational fear”, and the Christian community in Guyana and elsewhere have spent a considerable amount of time and effort advocating that opposition to the issue of homosexuality, and moreso of gay militancy as prescribed by Simpson, Kissoon and Sasod, is anything but irrational. Simpson’s last letter cited above represents another opportunity to provide the police, judiciary, national library and health workers with a body of knowledge that will inform a holistic appreciation of the issues.
It is training about the realty of the GBLT lifestyle, rather than “anti-homophobia training” that needs to be promoted. It is the truth that will set persons free, not a generous dosage of deception.
First, 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 Simpson’s arguments, 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 care-givers and health workers, should remain “behaviour modification” rather than “accommodation”. We have addressed some of these issues and arguments in the online summary “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter” .
Secondly, we should lament the casualness with which Simpson, and apparently (sic) the WHO, alludes to the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Our previous efforts have ensured that Simpson is fully aware of the impropriety and downright falsehood that this statement represents. Again, we point 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 Dr. 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 ). Both persons, and hopefully by now the WHO, seem to agree that all three great pioneers of psychiatry … Freud, Jung and Adler … saw homosexuality as disordered.
Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. How did this happen? Simply through gay-militant advocacy of the sort that Simpson/Kissoon/Sasod is advocating.
As with the dispensation of medicine, Psychiatry performs an essential function in the health sector, and is good that Sasod, Simpson and Kissoon must now confront the fact that the entire premise upon which they triumphantly cite the (sic) WHO decision has no basis in health science.
Thirdly, we are not so long down the road from the grisly events of the past year in which several schoolboys at a local school were sexually molested, while yet another establishment in proximity to another high school in the centre of Georgetown promotes same-sex pornographic film “festivals” to students and public alike.
It therefore came as no surprise when, deep in Simpson’s/Kissoon’s letter above, we found a thinly-veiled “appeal” to address “male rape” and “consensual same-sex” in the Ministry of Human Services’ pending “Stamp It Out” legislation. We have addressed the folly of this endeavour in the online recommendation to the Minister, the Opposition, the Church and the Press labelled “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It Out Consultation”. Good law is based on good information, not duplicity or ambivalence.
Guyana’s 1998 Policy Statement on PLWHA adequately addresses non-discriminatory practices in the health sector, and the Ministry of Health would be ill-advised to accommodate Simpson’s and Sasod’s obvious attempt to confuse the legitimate medical needs of PLWHA with their own gay-militant attempts to infiltrate and control health-sector policy.
Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
May 24th 2008
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Supporting Gay Rights Laws Would Court Legal Disaster
Context: The following is a copy of a letter of response appearing in the Stabroek News of December 15, 2007. Using editorial prerogative, fully one-third of that letter was deleted by SN. It is important, however, to have the reader note the five highlighted examples of legal confusion that can arise if the Caribbean adopts “Gay Rights” laws.
Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter by “Members of SASOD” (SN 12/12/07) captioned “Homophobia in the Caribbean has to change”, and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. This response is copied to Grenada’s Minister of Tourism and the local press in that country, since SASOD in its letter (while name-dropping) completely ignores the evidence of the association of GLBT-behaviour with the sexual abuse of children, crime, and the destruction of the national social ethos. It is important to stress the following:
1. A preponderance of fact-based knowledge now exists to show that homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong. We had cited Roger Magnuson’s careful legal proposition at 2.2 and 3.4 of the article “An Initial Critique of Guyana’s National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) in that regard. As usual, the issues cited therein remain unanswered by SASOD. This is hypocritical and unprofessional.
2. SASOD again refuses to address this evidence, but chooses rather to adopt the familiar but still inadequate treatment of the ad-hominem argument, citing “UN” and “human-rights” arguments that are misplaced and devoid of intellectual merit. We had cited in response the careful and decisive articulation of evidence in the “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told” law review series (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) compiled by fine legal minds at Regent University, and should now do so again. It is the truth that sets persons free from sexual disorders.
We had also addressed many of SASOD’s arguments before in 2006 in rebuttal to its reckless promotion of Vikran Seth’s “Open Letter”. The arguments still hold. A copy of that response is found online as “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter” at http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/response-to-vikram-seths-open-letter.html . This should be required reading for policy makers. David Lee Mundy’s conclusion in that expose’ bears repeating, especially given cases currently before the courts in Guyana:
".... 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...."
Now, relative to discrimination, shelter, and accommodation, Guyana’s ‘National Policy’ document of 1998 already makes provision for non-discrimination in the working environment, and there should be no further legislation in this regard. SASOD, and possibly the NAC, have erred grievously in mixing up the legitimate concerns of PLWHA with protecting homosexuality and bisexuality, legalizing buggery and prostitution, and ignoring commonsense medical imperatives aimed at fighting HIV/AIDS. Magnuson offers that to go further in supporting “gay rights” ordinances, “anti-discrimination” or “hate-crime” legislation of the sort SASOD wants would be to court the following legal disasters: (1) Negating the right of parents or school districts to control the moral calibre of the person who teaches their children; (2) Negating the right of an employer to determine whether an applicant’s moral character will affect his job performance, and; (3) Negating the right of churches and other religious entities to exclude, or refuse to hire, someone whose lifestyle is contrary to their religious convictions. A literal-minded judge would find that such laws give protection to a large number of sex criminals. Take, for example, the possible “protected” behaviours under a gay rights ordinance (cited in “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy” by Roger Magnuson; Multhnoma Press, Portland Oregon , 97266 ; 1990; Pages 98-100) …
* A convicted child molester, homosexual or heterosexual, could sue a day-care center that refuses to hire him, claiming discrimination on the basis of his “sexual orientation”; such an ordinance would thus protect behaviour declared criminal under state law.
* An insurance company could be sued for refusing to extend health insurance benefits to the sodomy partner of a homosexual or to the wives of a polygamist. The insurance company would be discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation” by refusing to extend coverage to “spouses” because of their sexual preferences. Since both sodomy and polygamy are prohibited under … state law, such an ordinance would protect behaviour already declared criminal.
* A landlord who refuses to rent or sell a facility to a person running a house of prostitution could be sued for refusing to rent or sell housing based on the person’s “sexual orientation”. Yet prostitution is a crime under (state) law.
* A bank that refuses to loan money to moviemaker who enjoys making and selling child pornography would be discriminating against the moviemaker on the basis of his “sexual orientation”. Yet the making/selling of child pornography is a crime under most state law.
* Law enforcement officials who arrest the customers of prostitutes, pornography stores, or child sex rings could be sued under the ordinance for “obstruction of practices unlawful under this chapter (of the law)” if it is viewed that the police are discriminating against people who patronize certain “public accommodations” based on their specific “sexual orientation”. Prostitution, the sale of pornography, and sex with children are all crimes under state statutes. Such an ordinance could protect behaviour declared criminal under state law.
Concludes Magnuson: “Those who think such results unlikely need only review the surprising interpretations courts give broadly worded laws”. Finally, the comment in the first paragraph of page 2/16 of the review by Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc ) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists and policy-makers in the Caribbean:
".... 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. 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...."
Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter by “Members of SASOD” (SN 12/12/07) captioned “Homophobia in the Caribbean has to change”, and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. This response is copied to Grenada’s Minister of Tourism and the local press in that country, since SASOD in its letter (while name-dropping) completely ignores the evidence of the association of GLBT-behaviour with the sexual abuse of children, crime, and the destruction of the national social ethos. It is important to stress the following:
1. A preponderance of fact-based knowledge now exists to show that homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong. We had cited Roger Magnuson’s careful legal proposition at 2.2 and 3.4 of the article “An Initial Critique of Guyana’s National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) in that regard. As usual, the issues cited therein remain unanswered by SASOD. This is hypocritical and unprofessional.
2. SASOD again refuses to address this evidence, but chooses rather to adopt the familiar but still inadequate treatment of the ad-hominem argument, citing “UN” and “human-rights” arguments that are misplaced and devoid of intellectual merit. We had cited in response the careful and decisive articulation of evidence in the “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told” law review series (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) compiled by fine legal minds at Regent University, and should now do so again. It is the truth that sets persons free from sexual disorders.
We had also addressed many of SASOD’s arguments before in 2006 in rebuttal to its reckless promotion of Vikran Seth’s “Open Letter”. The arguments still hold. A copy of that response is found online as “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter” at http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/response-to-vikram-seths-open-letter.html . This should be required reading for policy makers. David Lee Mundy’s conclusion in that expose’ bears repeating, especially given cases currently before the courts in Guyana:
".... 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...."
Now, relative to discrimination, shelter, and accommodation, Guyana’s ‘National Policy’ document of 1998 already makes provision for non-discrimination in the working environment, and there should be no further legislation in this regard. SASOD, and possibly the NAC, have erred grievously in mixing up the legitimate concerns of PLWHA with protecting homosexuality and bisexuality, legalizing buggery and prostitution, and ignoring commonsense medical imperatives aimed at fighting HIV/AIDS. Magnuson offers that to go further in supporting “gay rights” ordinances, “anti-discrimination” or “hate-crime” legislation of the sort SASOD wants would be to court the following legal disasters: (1) Negating the right of parents or school districts to control the moral calibre of the person who teaches their children; (2) Negating the right of an employer to determine whether an applicant’s moral character will affect his job performance, and; (3) Negating the right of churches and other religious entities to exclude, or refuse to hire, someone whose lifestyle is contrary to their religious convictions. A literal-minded judge would find that such laws give protection to a large number of sex criminals. Take, for example, the possible “protected” behaviours under a gay rights ordinance (cited in “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy” by Roger Magnuson; Multhnoma Press, Portland Oregon , 97266 ; 1990; Pages 98-100) …
* A convicted child molester, homosexual or heterosexual, could sue a day-care center that refuses to hire him, claiming discrimination on the basis of his “sexual orientation”; such an ordinance would thus protect behaviour declared criminal under state law.
* An insurance company could be sued for refusing to extend health insurance benefits to the sodomy partner of a homosexual or to the wives of a polygamist. The insurance company would be discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation” by refusing to extend coverage to “spouses” because of their sexual preferences. Since both sodomy and polygamy are prohibited under … state law, such an ordinance would protect behaviour already declared criminal.
* A landlord who refuses to rent or sell a facility to a person running a house of prostitution could be sued for refusing to rent or sell housing based on the person’s “sexual orientation”. Yet prostitution is a crime under (state) law.
* A bank that refuses to loan money to moviemaker who enjoys making and selling child pornography would be discriminating against the moviemaker on the basis of his “sexual orientation”. Yet the making/selling of child pornography is a crime under most state law.
* Law enforcement officials who arrest the customers of prostitutes, pornography stores, or child sex rings could be sued under the ordinance for “obstruction of practices unlawful under this chapter (of the law)” if it is viewed that the police are discriminating against people who patronize certain “public accommodations” based on their specific “sexual orientation”. Prostitution, the sale of pornography, and sex with children are all crimes under state statutes. Such an ordinance could protect behaviour declared criminal under state law.
Concludes Magnuson: “Those who think such results unlikely need only review the surprising interpretations courts give broadly worded laws”. Finally, the comment in the first paragraph of page 2/16 of the review by Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc ) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists and policy-makers in the Caribbean:
".... 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. 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...."
Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
13th December 2007
Saturday, June 27, 2009
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 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
".... 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 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
"....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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
