Gay German MP campaigns against Jamaican music

[Don1]

X, Don1 - I would like to interject if I may...

There one key thing that I think you guys believe and it is basic to the homosexual argument and that is: your sexuality is a conscious choice. I happen to believe that homosexuals do not choose their orientation, and for that reason I have sympathy for their social situation. Isn't it uncanny that in almost EVERY society that we can think of, homosexuality exists? The last statement may not necessarily be factual but I believe it is safe to say that even among animals ( the four-legged and others) we see homosexual behaviour.

You ask me...if pu$$y so sweet why on earth would a man choose a man over woman? it defies logic to me and so I have to agree with those who would say that this orientation of man to man (and woman to woman) has to be hard-wired in the brain.

On the other hand having a polygamous relationship one man or woman with many partners (of any kind) is just downright greediness... it (polygamy) is accepted in some societies and others not, for I believe these are conscious choices we make. The norm of not recognizing gay relationships I do not see as cultural. If my belief is correct then it means that as a society we will always have a problem (after all dem write about in de Bible from so many centuries ago) and like the oldest profession in the world no matter how much "fyah bun" trow down homosexuality has never and will never disappear...those who take that stance have their head stuck in the sand IMO... unuh can fyah bun mi like unuh treat Ben but I do believe he is correct in his stance.

Now a whe wifey deh?

Mi nuh bizniz if ah conscious choice ar not..mi nuh ave time fi figga dat out... some ah dem yes is conscious...some ah dem no.. so what?

The majority has a right to decide on the social equation based on wi kulcha & beliefs at any given point in time... nuh tru?

simple solution to homo rights in Jamaica... mek peeple vote pon it.

...mek di peeple seh if dem waan fassy fi have legal rights fi marry etc.... all inna gay California dem still ah rejek dat.

Argument done... no lo contendre

[Peter R]

Don1, A man IMO, who consciously decides to seek a homosexual fling is a deviant...again, I reiterate, why on Earth would any self-respecting heterosexual man give up the pleasure of a woman to pursue another man? unless he is a pervert. Whether you have time to figure it out or not is up to you but if it is as I believe that your orientation is out of your conscious control in the same way as the colour of your hair, then surely the attitude towards homos should be one of acceptance rather than fyah bunnin...

If however, you believe that it is a conscious choice then the discussion ends. Note, I am not dealing with deviants, I mean there are people who have sex with animals....that just isn't right. X alluded to putting children at risk...how more so I ask? than our young females who are sold and tradedlike meat in a market to satisfy heterosexual appetites. Deviants and predators come in all orientations and we shouldn't muddle the two issues...

As far as marriage is concerned that is not the focus of my sympathy with gays...it simply is being accepted as any other member of society. In JA how can we talk of those rights when it is illegal to be homosexual? And Don, if as you say the people in JA were to vote on ANY gay rights, they (gays) would forever be condemned to the fringes of society to live in fear of life and limb (and I am not spouting propaganda here) if they find themselves in certain situations, SIMPLY because of sexual orientation.

A first step that those in charge of protecting ALL members of society would be to de-criminalise homosexuality. If we are indeed an accepting society, why maintain laws which are outdated and make criminals of individuals who, as I believe, have no control over their sexuality?

[Baddaz]

yes iyah... lang time him deh pon de rant... as yuh can si, mi nuh badda wid him when him deh pon da road deh...

yuh si seh all now him still cannot provide a cogent response to the question mi ask him... and dat a years now him get fi formulate a response...

my advice is to low maudib and his attempts to further him and him fren dem agenda... i think de forumites dem a bawl fi a reprieve from de subject... it a gwaan too long...

[Muadib]

How is the 'Social Contract' coming along....

lol !

[Muadib]

Yuh stay deh ah bring long argument..

Bettah yuh argue wid a KKK...

[Don1]

How is the 'Social Contract' coming along....

lol !

nice!

di bank dem look like dem ah sign on... FORWARD CHAUFFEUR! TOOT! TOOT!

[Sir X]

Peter the AGENDAS advocacy isnt about the act to practice homosexuality it goes farther , it wants it to be institutionalized with a legal moral code that they have the right to marry , which carries certain benefits .

My question is simple and it has nothing to do with the act, but the institution of marriage and its civil liberties , where does society draw the line.

Isnt marriage voluntary ? Surprise its not genetic .So are we going to have polygamous marriages of male marrying males (homosexual) , women marrying women (lesbians ) or a woman with multiple husbands not just the normal polygamous marriage of a a man with multiple wives but under the so called argument of civil liberties arent consenting adults allowed to marry whomever and as many spouses as they choose as long as they are in love and no party is being hurt (consenting) ?

We havent touched on incestious marriages , have we ? arent they entitled to the same civil liberties as the agenda? Tell me why not !And while you are at it tell me why it wouldnt be so hard on a poor childs soul to be raised in anyone of these enviroments ?

Thats the agendas argument , it has no end in sight as it pertains to pushing , exterminating and demolishing the sanctity of marriage.

The fact that the act homosexuality might be genectic or illegal is another issue , so is marriage.We have to learn to seperate the issues and not get clouded in the agendas cloud screens or fog of war.