Posted on 12/13/2009 9:04:20 AM PST by markomalley
Nettisha Walsh, the Dominica Freedom Party candidate for the Salisbury constituency, evoked uproar from constituents at a public forum when she declared that she had no respect for gay people.
“I respect nobody who is gay,” Walsh told a constituency parliamentary debate at the Salisbury Government School last night.
She was responding to a question posed by pastor of the Salisbury Pentecostal Church, Lloyd Vidal regarding the candidates views on gay tourism.
“We are a Christian, God-fearing nation and to bring such an abomination into our country, it hinders our development,” the young candidate charged.
Walsh further asserted countries should reject gay cruises.
“God will not intervene to take us further because it is an abomination and God will not like it. So we as a Christian nation should stand up and say no to gay tourism too. It should not be allowed in our country or any other country as a matter of fact. Again I will say I respect nobody who is gay whether it’s woman or not,” she said.
The Dominica Labour Party candidate Bentley Royer and United Workers Party candidate Hector John offered different views.
“I respect everybody’s sexual persuasion,” UWP candidate Hector John told the audience.
“Living in the US for two-and-a-half years I have experienced being around persons that have different sexual orientation and we worked together, we go to school together, we respect each other, we played together. There was no difficulty since you keep your business to yourself ... I think if they come to Dominica and they respect and enjoy the island there is no problem. They come they go ... most importantly they respect the country. You come to a country you should not be walking how you want like you would be walking in the US. Respect the laws of the country and we wouldn’t have any problem,” John explained.
Meanwhile, Dominica Labour Party candidate Bentley Royer said Dominicans should not discriminate against people. Royer told the audience the laws of the country would dictate how such situations should be dealt with.
“We live in a world that seems to be very far and yet very close, and gay tourism appears to be one form of tourism that is worldwide. How do we in small countries like Dominica deal with it? We cannot discriminate against people. We have laws which must be obeyed. Again the main thing is your laws. You have people in this island who are gays ... so you have to learn to deal with the situation. I think the laws of the country will decide how they behave on the island,” he explained.
The issue of gay tourism in Dominica has raised concern among the populace in recent time, prompting Dominicans on call-in radio programmes and ministers of religion to speak against it.
There was heightened interest following reports that several gay cruises were planned for Dominica from November 2005 to February 2006. The then head of the tourism office, Vincent Philbert, had said "We are promoting Dominica as a destination of choice, nature-based, adventure-type, diving and once we have done that it is reasonable to expect all manner of persons.”
I don’t want the government to take a stance on this type of private behavior. That, to me, move towards thought policing. If you disagree, you’re certainly welcome and able to do that.
Who’s asking the government to take a stance on *private* behavior? You’re changing the parameters of the discussion.
Yep, if I refer a patient to a counselor who suggests that God can help him not live as a homosexual - even if the patient asks for such counseling - I am no longer practicing according to “standard of care,” according to several medical societies, including my own American Academy of Family Physicians.
Last month, the AMA Delegates called for abolishing of all “bans” on same sex marriage and of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the military. The original resolutions asked for our members to recognize and work to relieve any health disparities and for the military to exempt private doctor-patient conversations from the policy. These were not good enough — and despite the complete lack of any scientific support for such sweeping social experimentation — any restrictions must be removed to make these few people happy.
Homosexuality is just wrong.
Hooray for this young woman in opposing sex degenerates in her nation.
Dilbert,
What you say is very true, and not just for homosexuals.
Young blacks American Jews, and many other varied groups have no idea how bad it really could be but then that is ignorance.
And if ya haven’t been to many third world places to see for yourself you just can not imagine.
Perhaps you didn’t follow the thread of the discusison. The OP said he wanted the government to come out and say what the DFP candidate has: (1) they don’t respect gays, (2) it’s an abomination, and (3)gay cruises should not be allowed to visit. If you think saying you don’t respect a group and it’s an abomination is NOT taking a stance on private behavior, (or even dangerously close to thought-policing, as I mentioned earlier) I think our interaction is done here.
Also using your logic, women can only marry men and men can only marry women. It’s a classic equal protection violation. Of course, we both know these are very silly arguments that obscure the real point.
A deadly pattern of conduct hurts all of civilization.
I disagree that my arguments are silly.
I may desire to marry my cousin.
I may desire to marry two men.
I may desire to marry a man who is already married.
I may desire to marry a minor.
I can’t. The law does not allow me to marry anyone I want.
I disagree that my arguments are silly.
I may desire to marry my cousin.
I may desire to marry two men.
I may desire to marry a man who is already married.
I may desire to marry a minor.
I can’t. The law does not allow me to marry anyone I want.
And it is very “natural” for me to want to do any or all of the above. I may lust for any or all of the above. It happens all the time. Yet, I can’t marry these objects of my sexual desire.
You have a reading comprehension problem. I don’t respect the individuals who flaunt their sexual immorality.
How am I to know that they are “gay”? What is private about “gay cruises”?
Of course it’s an abomination, as is any sort of sexual immorality. Of course we should not encourage open sexual immorality. Of course I do not respect anyone who openly practices sexual immorality.
As to your next post after this one: You are trying to confuse the issue by changing the definition of both marriage (union of one man and one woman) and equality.
“Equality” does not meant that you can do whatever you want and change the rules (and definitions) to fit what you want. It means that if a given act is legal for one, it’s legal for all.
I can own my home. I can’t declare that “home” now means my neighbor’s house or city hall or a State park and I now own one of them.
My reading comprehension is actually quite good, but I question yours, doctor. You’re the one changing the plane of the issue. I have said that this is the government taking a stance on private behavior, and you have failed to controvert that. You’re also conflating what you feel as an affront to your personal views with my condemnation of the government stepping into this arena. Like I’ve already said, I want you to have the freedom to believe anything that you want to. But I don’t want the government stepping into these matters.
As to your characterization of my second post, as I’ve already said, I find a civil union to be more or less tantamount to equality. There are a few issues that concern me (I previously mentioned spousal privilege in legal matters) but I am not advocating that the states change the definition of marriage. I do think that equality calls for at least a civil union option, however.
There’s nothing private about public behavior or any sort of actions that require legal intervention or privilege.
Again, you’re talking about changing public law.
By the way, there are various sorts of legal partnerships, powers of attorney, etc., that can be obtained for most purposes by any two people or any group of people.
I respect no one who continues to support the kenyan.
RE: your second point. That's fair, but limited. Again, these issues are all state law matters, and accordingly have wildly different results in different states.
Respect goes both ways. The “public” gay men and women don’t respect freedom, private property or freedom of religion - only their own selfish wants.
I, too, was once, “Live and let live.” That (as well as my flirtation with Libertarianism) ended Valentine’s Day, 2004, when it finally dawned on me that it is not possible to live with men and women who have no respect for the law or the process of law making.
If they were doing it in the privacy of their own homes, no one would interfere as long as no one is being hurt. Even the notorious Texas sodomy case was instigated by the men who were arrested - they made the call to the police, themselves, for the express purpose of challenging the law. It was not for them to work through the legislature to overturn the law. For some reason, they needed the exhibitionism as well.
Instead, they bring their private and sinful way of living into the public every chance they get: even my FReeRepublic. They sue for changes in laws, and in the States where they have achieved a change in marriage laws, they sue people who do not wish to participate in their marriage ceremonies. They sue because people tell them they’re sinning.
I appreciate your thoughts, but again, I think we have an unreconcilable difference of opinion. The beauty of our legal system (at least in theory) is that it is built to accomodate and withstand challenges so that the law is consistent with values in the constitution. The ideas underlying what you’re saying work very well, until you’re in the minority. Bringing a challenge to laws does not mean you have no respect for law or law-making. It could rather mean you have the utmost respect for the ability of the judiciary to seek justice consistent with grants in the constitution. The judiciary serves the necessary function of checking the limits of legislative power. Imagine the police state possibilities if we did not buy into that institution.
You should check your facts on Lawrence v. Texas, by the way. The arrest was precipitated by a neighbor’s false police report.
Why should the government establish -—and thus endorse-— such unions?
We aren’t at an impasse. Homosexual acts are morally wrong.
No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, desire is not enough to make such a wide-reaching social change as legal encouragement of homosexuality.
It’s incumbent on the ethical, responsible citizen to attempt changes in the law by reasonable, rational means and to at least attempt to give evidence that the change is for the better.
The 3 men who brought us the Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas case don’t add any evidence that their activities were either private or at all a change for the better for our society.
The “neighbor” who made the false complaint was Robert Royce Eubanks. He was actually Garner’s roommate at the time and was sexually involved with both Lawrence and Garner. He was later murdered in Garner’s apartment, before the case was even heard in the SCOTUS. Garner died a couple of years ago, of complications of an infection - according to FR posts, after losing his legs due to meningitis.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/937725/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1123988/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.