This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
An initial response to Christopher Carrico’s “Collateral Damage: The Social Impact of Laws Affecting LGBT Persons in Guyana” Gay militancy and advocacy is built on a hoax … the avoidance of the evidence, the deception of its victims cum supporters … of stupendous proportions. The University of the West Indies‟ Cave Hill Faculty of Law may be unwittingly feeding the deception. How responsible is UWI being … because the “social impact” of works promoting gay advocacy will ultimately be judged by their complete exclusion of references to the detail provided in law reviews like “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”( http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf )? Christopher Carrico has just produced a study “Collateral Damage ….” and, as we turn to peruse its contents, some initial questions need to be asked … and some baseline(s) established. The analytical and investigative perspective: We have alluded before to two statements that summarize the investigative perspective that should inform all, repeat all analyses of publications emanating from gay-activist camps. Carrico‟s “study” deserves no less rigour in any assessment! First, as considered in the response to Nadia Sagar, and as to Guyana the “secular state” relative to “gay rights”, we have yet to find a more concise statement on the relationship between state, government, man and God as that offered by Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier in the online article “Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right” (www.crrange.com/wall34.html ). Ad nauseam, we seek recourse yet again to those words: “… 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...." Second, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi in “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” ((http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf ) sums up the social pathos generated by “studies” of the sort attempted by Carrico in these fatal words: “…Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too—who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant— proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right...” Should Christians and Muslims in Guyana be worried?: Homosexuality and Transgenderism as medical conditions are the only mental/psycho-sexual disorders that set up as their nonnegotiable and ultimate goal/end the destruction of key creation-structures in the Judeo-Christian Worldview ... Evidence, Fact, Truth, Sex, Marriage, Family, Manhood, Womanhood! How significant is this? The 56% of Guyana‟s voting population who are Christian, and the 20% or more who are Muslims, would surely be interested in an answer. We have asked searching questions of the Hindu worldview in the online article “Aksharananda’s Delusion on Homosexuality: Western Values and their Usurpation by “Gay Rights/Human Rights” “ ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/34519077/Aksharananda%E2%80%99s-Delusion-on-Homosexuality-Western-Values-and-theirUsurpation-by-%E2%80%9CGay-Rights-Human-Rights%E2%80%9D ). These questions have yet to be answered. They should also be guided by the unusually blunt and brutal assessment of current British anti-Christian governmental policy by Melanie Phillips‟ “How Britain is Turning Christianity Into a Crime” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404052/HowBritain-turning-Christianity-crime.html ) ... in the name of „human‟ and „gay‟ rights! Will Christopher Carrico address this issue in his “study” ... considering its obvious relevance to the legal/moral/social/medical insanity of “gay rights” and its „collateral damage” to Western civilization? Will Carrico cite academic/professional/Police pedigree in his “study”?: We thought we had addressed the issue of the “necessity” of laws against homosexuality and transgenderism in the letter published in the Kaieteur News of February 27, 2010 captioned “Laws Against Homosexual and Transgender Activity Exist for a Number of Good Reasons” (http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/02/27/laws-against-homosexual-and-transgenderactivity-exist-for-a-number-of-good-reasons/ ). Then, we dared not speculate that the “UG-Student” and Carrico‟s perspective were other than coincidentally synchronized in their intellectual mischief and inattention to evidence and detail. Sadly, if Carrico was indeed at the University of Guyana during that period, we have to revisit that outlook.
Consider the 2002 law review by Dr. Judith Reisman "Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth" ( http://www.drjudithreisman.org... ). In that 60-page indictment, under the caption “Hiding Dirty Laundry” Reisman outlines the astonishing fact that violence WITHIN the “gay” community is many, many, many times greater than that inflicted upon them by usually tolerant societies. It is essentially a function of raging psychosexual/mental distress! Consider also the seminal 2006-treatment by Matt Staver “Transsexualism and the Binary Divide: determining sex Using Objective Criteria” (http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1756 ) . It addresses every case decided on the issue, and we must ask if Carrico has addressed the issue with equal intensity and comprehensiveness, or will he “interpret” highly suspect “questionnaires” and use partisan resources? The relevant parts of Dr. Reisman‟s law review are summarized at pages 21 and 22 of the online article “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality”. It proves the rule! A psycho-sexual/mental disorder, when given the space to consider itself "normal" will ALWAYS seek to impose its madness on society … by fair means or foul. But … Carrico will not touch genuine Police statistics … or will he? Or will his „statistics‟ by a miracle of deception suddenly infer the opposite to what the Police are telling us? Will his credentialed sources in his “study” include the express written opinion of any medical doctors? How important is it to reflect fact, truth and evidence in any “study”?: To the extent that the aim has always been to provide a basis upon which the people of Guyana can make informed decisions, we should ask both sasod and Carrico to advise us where in the latter‟s report we can find reference to the net outworking of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi‟s 2001-statement in the online article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf ): “… 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. 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 this shift of opinion? Submits 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 an advocacy perspective….‟ The simple and astonishing answer is … Carrico and sasod cannot … or will not … address this issue. On what basis, them, is Carrico‟s report founded? (See “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality ; and “The Case Against Crossdressing or Transgenderism in Guyana”; http://www.scribd.com/doc/27698238/The-CaseAgainst-Cross-Dressing-or-Transgender-ism-in-Guyana-UPDATED ). Why won’t the British High Commissions, and the OAS, fund studies illustrating the evidence against “gay rights”?: Since we last heard from him in February 2010, Carrico‟s very weak effort then has obviously and magically transformed into funding from the Brits. The last sentence in Nicolosi‟s excerpt above is an equally compelling indictment of Britain and the British High Commissions in Guyana, Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean. We should leave the Bar Associations of the West Indies to determine if (the University of the West Indies‟) Faculty of Law at Cave Hill‟s subscription to Carrico‟s effort was worthy of their loud, if not too generous, endorsement. Like the OAS, Carrico and his diplomatic accomplices should show where … if anywhere … they have accommodated the opposing view by equal and sustained funding. Or supported scholarship in that regard! Searching questions and requests have previously been asked of Guyana‟s Permanent Representative to the OAS, the OAS-office in Guyana, and the OAS‟ Secretariat in the online article “Response to OAS and PANCAP on Sexual Orientation, and Decriminalizing Homosexuality and Prostitution” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/49683511/Response-to-OAS-and-PANCAP-onSexual-Orientation-And-Decriminalizing-Homosexuality-and-Prostitution ). Mr. Moses, his office, and the OAS-Secretariat did not respond on that occasion. The simple and astonishing answer is … the British High Commissions and the OAS cannot … or will not … now so do! Is an attempt being made to circumvent fact, truth and evidence?: Why this haste and determination to “manufacture” a so-called “basis‟ for gay-advocacy in Guyana? The possible … and simple … answer is that the tactic has been used before in the USA. We should contemplate the words of Dr. Charles Socarides, cited at Pfox‟s version of “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” ( http://www.pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html ), an excerpt of which reads ...
“… [In the late 1960’s] Clearly a disturbing trend was developing, with homosexuals banding together, not to demand help from psychiatry and the medical profession and public recognition of their condition (alongside those individuals with any form of neurosis or emotional disorder) or simply to protest against legal injustices, but to proclaim their “normality” and attack all opposition to this view….. By declaring a condition a “non-condition,” a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders….. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years, for example, the Report of the Committee of Cooperation with Governmental (Federal) Agencies of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1955); the New York Academy of Medicine Report (1964); the Task Force Report of the New York County District Branch of the APA done in 1970-72 (Socarides, et. al., 1973)….” Is there a huge medical basis against “gay rights”?: So now let's assess the point of view in 2010 of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in all of this ("FastFacts for HIV/AIDS 2010) … and the actuarial impact that an HIV/AIDS infection rate 44 times greater than that for heterosexuals … can have on Guyana‟s fragile and abused healthcare system. Gay-advocacy needs entire medical brigades to support the "lifestyle" ... and its militants will always target or suborn the Health Minister/Ministry in activist states! Read Kathleen Melonakos‟ “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered a Disorder on the Basis of Its Medical Consequences?” (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1961/13/61130 ). The simple and astonishing fact is that Carrico … and sasod.... have not … addressed this CDC viewpoint! It is also a function of raging delusion that they may not ... not once ... consider the already solid medical case for treatment of same-sex-attraction-disorders as outlined in the book by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth". The point is … if medical remedy exists, then you do not have to legislate a mental/psychosexual disorder into “normalcy”! Dr. Satinover lists at Table 7 no less than 15 Secular Outcome Studies that illustrate success (some as high as 82%) in the treatment of same-sex-attraction-disorders. Therein, perhaps, lies the incentive to develop a new “gay” science which supports the deathstyle! We should repeat … gay advocacy in Guyana … and worldwide … is built on a hoax of stupendous proportions! And Britain continues to feed the beast! The Dilemma for the Guyana Bar Association, and Guyana’s Attorney-General: An obvious dilemma exists for the Guyana Bar Association. We raised the possibility in “A Blind Pursuit of a Liberal Agenda” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/87530738/Sasod-A-Blind-Pursuit-of-a-Liberal-Agenda ) that Carrico‟s duplicitous advocacy will raise this significant point: Does “gay rights” signal the end of the relevance of evidence, the end of the rational law? As the current Conservative-led but Liberal-controlled administration in Britain rushes to argue before the European Court on Human Rights that Christians do not have the right to wear crucifixes (in 2012) , Justice Antonin Scalia answers us in his read and written dissent in the case Lawrence v. Texas as outlined at pages 27-37 in the online article “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-theDecriminalization-of-Homosexuality ). In a treatment that gay-activist jurisprudence seeks to avoid like the plague rather than rebut, Scalia is forced to come to the following astonishing conclusion about the fate of the law in America (and I daresay Guyana): “... “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legis lation . If, as the Court asse rts, the promotion of m aj oritarian sexual morality is no t even a legitimate state interest, none of the above -mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review....” Will Christopher Carrico address this in his “study”? Somehow ... I think not. But he may yet prove us wrong! Is Carrico advocating wastage of scarce resources, and not treatment and healing?: And what will Carrico do with the considered opinion of Dr. Paul McHugh, Distinguished service Professor in Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins. Dr. McHugh's in "Surgical Sex" ( http://www.policystudies.ca/documents/Surgical_Sex_Change.pdf ) is forced to come to this astonishing conclusion: "... We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it...." Christopher Carrico … and the British High Commissions in Guyana and the Eastern Caribbean point-of-view … or will they? One inescapable conclusion: Their failures to attend to these issues/questions will lead to one inescapable conclusion: gay advocacy in Guyana … and worldwide … is built on a hoax, a deception, of stupendous proportions! … will not address Dr. McHugh‟s
So now we turn to address Carrico‟s study … immediately noting that he has not referred to any overt medical resource or authority … or any of the many references cited above … and are immediately reminded of the online law review “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy” (which link, in as overt an exhibition as possible of the partisan and anti-scholarship position adopted by a complicit media, greets visitors with the ominous message “This site is not authorized by Yahoo!!”). But readers should persist, and after reading the law review, determine for themselves what, exactly, prompted this disclaimer by Yahoo!. Roger Williams April 25, 2012
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.