Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Case Against PANCAP and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality

The Case Against PANCAP and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality

Ratings:

4.5

(2)
|Views: 5,039|Likes:
Published by RogerWilliams
Towards a policy framework opposing efforts to decriminalize homosexuality and redefine marriage.
Towards a policy framework opposing efforts to decriminalize homosexuality and redefine marriage.

More info:

categoriesTypes, Research, Law
Published by: RogerWilliams on Jul 26, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, DOC, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

09/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
INTRODUCTORY LESSONS FOR PANCAP: WHY PROPOSITION 8 WILL STAND IN 2010
(Try all links using Firefox first; Search using Yahoo!-Search first!)REASON 1: AMERICA WILL AGAIN REJECT GAY-MILITANT INTIMIDATION“Matt Gurney: California's gay marriage vote sparks retribution (see also page 39 below)
Posted: November 14, 2008, 1:00 PM by Kelly McParland
“….
 
Democracy requires voters to sometimes decide painful, contentious issues. An absolute prerequisite to that is being able to restassured that one may cast their vote – and yes, donate their money – safe in the knowledge that their legally-discharged democratic duty willnot expose them to vigilante retribution or political intimidation
. Eckern chose to step aside without a fight, and seems genuinely mortified to havecaused offence.
I cannot help but wonder, though, what would have happened if he'd stuck by his guns and simply stated that how he spenthis money was his business?
Would the California Musical Theater have championed their employee's right to vote his conscience, or would theyhave exercised political censorship by finding some way to turf him for supporting Yes on 8?Scott Eckern is an accidental symbol, a man thrust into the spotlight by the vagaries of chance and the realities of instant electronic communication. Butthere are thousands of others like him who have been left equally exposed to revenge or social stigmatization for disagreeing with another person'sopinion.
Democracy cuts both ways, and financial supporters of gay marriage are just as vulnerable to retaliation as those who opposed it.The aftermath of this campaign has already turned ugly, and if the situation deteriorates further, lives could well be endangered.
Whencontacted for comment, Andrew Pugno, a spokesman for the Yes on 8 Campaign, wrote,
"It is unlike anything I have ever seen before. It is scary.And notable that law enforcement and government leaders stand by silently."
California's choice to publish the names, addresses, andoccupations of those who donate large sums to political causes is not only dangerous politically, but could quickly become dangerous in the most literalsense possible. With tempers running hot, the shaming of Scott Eckern and his resignation might strike some as a victory.
Those who wouldcelebrate should be mindful, however, of the potential ramifications of having opened this particular Pandora's Box. Indeed, opponents of Proposition 8 might soon rue the day that in their earnest and understandable haste to drive the government out of their bedrooms, theypushed themselves into another citizen's voting booth….”REASON 2: AMERICANS WILL AGAIN REJECT GAY-MILITANT VIOLENCE“Prop. 8 supporters suffer vandalism, violence” (see also page 36 below)
Associated Press - 11/3/2008 7:15:00 AMhttp://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=308506SAN DIEGO - A pastor leading efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would end same-sex "marriage" in California says the campaign has become thetarget of vandalism and violence.
 
Rev. Jim Garlow says signs urging a "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 are being stolen, churches have been pelted with eggs, cars have beenparked outside the homes of supporters bearing the message "Bigots live here," and some supporters have been physically assaulted.Garlow says a pastor even had the windows of his car shot out because he was displaying a "Yes on 8" sticker. "One man in Modesto wasbeaten as he was handing out 'Yes on 8' signs, and had stitches in his eye," he adds."We have boys dying...protecting our freedom in Iraq, while we have our freedom being taken as people rip signs out and destroy them anddeface them," says Pastor Garlow. "It's quite an amazing venue to find ourselves in [here] in America.
"Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."The measure is supported by evangelical Christian, Roman Catholic, and Mormon groups. It is opposed by Unitarians and Episcopalians.
REASON 3: AMERICANS WILL HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT …
"
Homosexuality is not a Civil Right
"by Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia ( www.crrange.com/wall34.html ):
 
“…. When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rightsattach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moraltradition 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, andcommunity. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rightsmovement….”REASON 4: AMERICA WILL AGAIN REJECT A HOAX THAT IGNORES THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
"
The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual
“…. All three great pioneers of psychiatry--Freud, Jung and Adler--saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to befound in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticated attitude? Has there been any new research to account for thisshift of opinion? I submit that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question.Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from anadvocacy perspective.Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist thatacceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too--who areself-conscious about sounding intolerant--proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it "justdoesn't seem right…. Yet in the history of psychiatry, has a heterosexual ever sought treatment for distress about his heterosexuality andwished to become homosexual? When I put that question in correspondence to the chairman of the
DSM 
Nomenclature Committee, RobertL. Spitzer, he replied: "the answer, as you suspected, is no". Why does the profession no longer consider homosexuality a problem? .... ”
 
TOWARDS A POLICY FRAMEWORK OPPOSINGEFFORTS TO DECRIMINALIZE HOMOSEXUALITYPrevious Context
:One of CARICOM's departments, PANCAP, had indicated that it would in November 2008 be recommending to theregion's Attorneys-General the decriminalization of homosexuality and prostitution.This would have represented an act of folly that ignored all the sociological, scientific/medical, legal and moral facts tothe contrary.Pages 25-40 below illustrate the legal and civil forms of terrorism now used by gay militants and supporters.PANCAP used the astonishingly naive imperative that it would facilitate "access" by members of the homosexualcommunity to PLWHA treatment, forgetting that most HIV/AIDS treatment in the Caribbean is anonymous anyway, andthat the homosexuality community is associated with a phenomenal and disproportionate incidence of disease (in 1987responsible for more than 50% of the USA's cases of syphilis, while only representing 2% of the population). The psychosexual/mental disorder, and its definitive manifestation sodomy, fuels the spread of HIV/AIDS.The Jamaica Star Forum gave us an opportunity to share information with the wider Caribbean community and sample pro/con arguments and responses …Roger WilliamsUpdated May 28
th
2009from previous dated November, 2008
Current Context:
DemeraraWaves reports on 2/19/2012 the improbable news that “
”.
We offered in response a challenge to critique Kathleen Melonakos’ “
” No takers have arisen!Apart from the obvious factual omission that no CARICOM-summit or Leader has proposed or validated such aninitiative as reported by DemeraraWaves (does the UN now set policy initiatives for independent Caribbean states?), theUN’s Special Envoy manages to outline a social policy approach that completely ignores Justice Scalia’s written dissentin Lawrence v. Texas (see pages 26-35 of this document), and the legal, medical, psychiatric and social evidence. Indeed,he offers no authority other than conjecture! He dismisses the CDC-projection of 2-4% suffering from same-sex-attraction-disorder, and pulls a figure of 20% out of thin air for the Caribbean!This is irresponsible!Which raises the question ... where, exactly, does the UN Special Envoy get his facts on social policy from, or does hisinability to acknowledge or articulate any response to Scalia’s comment below mean that delusion (
 properly defined asa fixed   falsebelief that is resistant to reason or confrontationwith actual   fact 
) is currently informing the UN’sepidemiological proposals and protocols for the Caribbean! Doestruth, medical remedy or treatment exist in this protocol?This is a serious indictment, made necessary by the absence of detail in his proposal, and the UN Special Envoyshould offer sane responses to it, and Justice Scalia’s comment below:“...
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 in Lawrence v. Texas).
 
Does the UN Envoy comprehend the import of this statement?Does “gay-rights” signal the end of the law? ... The end of reason? Is it the UN’s job to usher in chaos?Roger WilliamsUpdated February 20, 2012-02-21From previous dated May 28
th
2009
 
 
 
Table of ContentsPgKey policy alternatives1-6
 Key alternative policy outcomes that PANCAP should be aiming at 
 3
-9
Key issues that will inform a policy opposing decriminalization1.
 Is the Judeo-Christian position tantamount to being “homophobic”?
10
2.
 Doesn’t the initial medical evidence contradict PANCAP’s position?
12
2(a).
 Is there additional medical evidence?
13
2(b).
 How can we claim that homosexuality needs entire medical brigades to justify its existence?
14
3(a).
Was the Judeo-Christian or “common sense” position arrived at by whim and fancy?
18
3(b).
From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation leads to Children’s sexual Exploitation
4.
What resources can be used to bring citizens up to speed in a short period of time?
20
5.
 Is the deliberate avoidance of alternative policy prescriptions a valid position for PANCAP?
21
6
 Deeper, more intense violence that the disorder homosexuality generates in its own community
22
7
The new craze: legalizing extant crimes … is PANCAP aware of the legal implications?
23
8.
 Is PANCAP being manipulated into supporting a 15-year gay-rights plan broadcast in 1993?
24
9.
The legal issues summarized in one page: PART I … HIV/AIDS used in larger deception
25
10.
The legal issues summarized in one page: PART II … The “right to privacy” delusion!
26
11.
The legal issues summarized: PART III … Justice Scalia’s dissent at Lawrence v. Texas
27
11(a)
Why does PANCAP feel obligated to support gay-militant terror-tactics and madness?
37
12.
The end of it all: Proposition 8 and gay militant terrorism PART I 
38
13.
The end of it all: Proposition 8 and gay militant terrorism PART II 
 
39
14.
The end of it all: Proposition 8 and gay militant terrorism PART III 
40
15.
The end of it all: The tyranny of the Courts PART I 
41
16.
The end of it all: The tyranny of the Courts PART II … the death of the democratic process?
42
17.
 End notes: How does Canada define “terror” relative to its “protection” of homosexuality?
44
18.
 End Notes II: What the Bible says in a few words is invariably supported by secular scholarship!
45

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->