Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I respect nobody who is gay, DFP candidate tells constituents (Dominica)
Dominica News Online ^ | 12/11/2009 | Edona Jno Baptiste

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.”

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dominica; homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last
To: hocndoc
You refuse to listen and this circular debate is growing stale. My contribution to it will end with this post.

“We aren’t at an impasse. Homosexual acts are morally wrong.”

I do not necessarily disagree with your characterization of homosexuality, but you either (1) don't understand what an impasse is or (2) have repeatedly missed my point. That's not what the impasse is about. Come on, I expect more of a learned person. (Of course, I'm assuming your intellectual honesty here.)

“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.”

That's not at all what this is about. If anything, this is about the merits of official government discouragement of homosexuality. I've said this many times. And I'm not even sure what specifically you are referring to. (Gay marriage? Repeal of anti-sodomy laws?) Regardless, desire has nothing to do with anything here. The major issues are the constitution and the government's role in taking a stance on private behavior.

“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.”

As a normative statement, I agree entirely. However, there is actually no such burden, at least for bringing suit. Even if there was, I trust you're objective enough to see that reasonable arguments can always be made on the other side. Not that I understand this strawman ‘other side’ you're concocting again.

“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.”

This is good to know, thank you. Still, it's entirely disingenuous to say the motive was expressly to overturn the law. It wasn't; calling the cops was out of jealousy. And that wasn't the point of my last post anyway. The point was that you labor under the painful misconception that challenging laws means you despise them and the law-making process. That's demonstrably not always true.

What you don't seem to understand is that not many do not the same morals and value set as you, and that—great as your values are—the founders intended the government to be a secular institution. Your viewpoint, as typified in your previous post, is a rather simplified “I'm right. They're wrong.” But, it is completely colored by religion and lacks an appreciation of Jeffersonian and Lockian ideals. Plain and simple, this debate does not belong in the government.

41 posted on 12/14/2009 8:19:33 AM PST by Conservativism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Conservativism

Perhaps the reason that you perceive our discussion to be “circular” is that you keep continue to make this about the intellect of the posters while repeatedly claiming that public - in this case, government - decisions about *public* acts - cruises, marriage - are discouraging private acts. If these acts were private, we and the government leaders in the OP wouldn’t be discussing them.

You gloss over the lawlessness *and* close relationship of the Lawrence 3, ignore completely the breaking of laws at city halls by civil servants entrusted with carrying out civil laws, and continue to claim that we are talking about private acts.

Morals are not simply religious. You (as well as Jefferson and Locke) believe in right and wrong, or you wouldn’t continue this conversation (and we wouldn’t have the documents this Nation is founded upon). Our founders agreed that laws are public matters for regulating interaction between people and best decided by the representatives in our republican governments. In fact, the founders did not intend our government to be a “secular institution.” They intended for this Nation to be supportive of many religions.(Otherwise, they wouldn’t have prayed in Congress so much. 3 hours the first day.)

Instead, in the reality of today’s US, the Courts have become oligarchies which overrule the will of the people and our representatives.

42 posted on 12/14/2009 9:03:21 AM PST by hocndoc ( (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson