Rebuttal to the article “Society should strongly oppose homosexual acts”

We at AFGC are quite aware of this Canadian man named “Paul Kokoski” who keeps writing to the Observer to export his anti-gay behaviour. Don’t be alarmed by his writing, it only means the LGBT movement is winning because he is obviously angry that Canada no longer endoses his anti-gay lifestyle and he feels that he must try and get his colleagues in Jamaica to “ramp up” the opposition.  History tells us this is futile.

As usual, we at AGFC are committed to refuting the anti-gay movement’s lies, misinformation and agenda and so we have decided to do a rebuttal to his piece in the Observer on July 17, 2012 entitled “Society should strongly oppose homosexual acts“.

You can find it here:


“This concerns the article “Gays take aim at Blaine” in the Jamaica Observer of July 13, 2012. I commend columnist Betty Ann Blaine and encourage her not to be intimidated by the homosexual lobby.”

AGFC never intended to intimidated Betty-Ann Blaine. We only did a rebuttal of her article “The big gay lie”.  If she feels intimidated by us then we must have said something right. See our rebuttal to her article here:


In the words of Cardinal George of Chicago, the gay liberation movement has begun to “morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan”. One might call them something akin to “Homo-Nazis”. They have thus far succeeded in inverting the West’s rule of law into the law of the jungle

This is no surprise to us at AGFC. The anti-gay movement is similar to other prejudiced based movements of the past. For example, during the Civil Rights Movements in the United States, black men were said to be out to rape white women if public schools were desegregated. Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. The agenda is to dehumanise who you don’t like and then turn them into the aggressor. Unlike the anti-gay movement, we at AGFC don’t stoop to the practice of name calling as they do by calling us “Homo-Nazis”.  We don’t use the words “homophobic”, “Christo-Nazi”, “bigot”, “hater” or dehumanise them by suggesting they are “inverting the West’s rule of law into the law of the jungle”.


Society must become more militant in opposing the acceptance of homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are not a “human right”. Of course, homosexuals must be treated with respect and compassion. Nonetheless, homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Paul Kokoski says that “Society must become more militant“. He has the nerve to suggest we are Nazis but then urges his anti-gay colleagues to “become more militant”? The aggressive nature of the anti-gay movement is coming out?

Anti-gay activists love to say that homosexual acts are not a human right much like the Saudi Arabian constitution (the Quran) says that converting someone to Christianity is not a human right and deserves the punishment of death. We can all twist the concept of human rights to suit our agenda and pick and choose which ones we recognise but what are the facts? Since 1994 after the Toonon v. Australia case, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights says that criminalising homosexual acts are a violation of human rights. The facts are the facts.

Scientists have documented 1500 species of animals that participate in homosexual acts so I’m not sure where he gets his “natural law” from (See here: Birth control like vasectomies close the “sexual act tot he gift of life” too so I wonder why those are approved (probably not in Mr. Kokoski’s church) and not homosexuality. For all the homosexuals reading this would you say as Mr. Kokoskis said that your sexual orientation doesn’t proceed from a genuine affection? Now we can see he is ignorant.


In the West the legalisation of homosexuality has already led to the proliferation of crime and the destruction of the family unit. Children as young as five years old – who have no knowledge of sex – are being brainwashed in schools to accept the perversion of homosexual acts as being normal and praiseworthy. At special risk now is religious freedom. In Canada, Christians are being harassed, threatened, and hauled into court for their biblical and scientifically supported conviction that homosexuality is not normal and that marriage is between one man and one woman.

We will not even comment on the accusation that homosexuality has led to the proliferation of crime because there was no proof given and we are unaware of this as it probably is a lie as usual.

If the legalisation of  homosexuality destroyed the family unit then the criminalisation of it must have done it much faster.  Not only does buggery law country Jamaica have 80% of its children born out of wedlock according to anti-gay activist, Mrs Esther Tyson (See here: but many gay men marry heterosexual women who mostly do not know they are gay and end up cheating on them destroying the family unit even further! (The anti-gay Jamaica Observer agrees with me :

Children are not taught about homosexual sex acts, they are taught that homosexual families or homosexual relationships exist. The opposition to this is quite strange to me. Homosexual families exist so why not mention that they do? Is it really because these Christians see homosexuality as sinful? Common-law relationships in Jamaica are taught in schools as an alternative family form and since Christians regard this as fornication why is it not opposed as vociferously as homosexual unions? That question needs to be answered.

Also Christians in Canada are not harassed unless they harass homosexuals first. AGFC did an extensive review of these claims at the bottom here : AGFC also documented LGBT activists being harassed all over the world here: sometimes even by Christian lobbyists.

As for the statement “marriage is between one man and one woman” was this always so or did the same world-view that the anti-gay activists drew their movement from define it as something else not too long ago?

Christians (notice the opened Bible) in 1967 protesting at the Supreme Court of the United States to defend what they defined as “biblical traditional marriage” between one man and one woman of the same race when inter-racial marriage was legalised.  Was it always just “one man and one woman” or did they just change the definition after 1967 to suit their new target?

Was marriage always defined as between “one man one woman” or did adherents to this world-view modify their definition when they changed their target?


To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual people are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent

The usual bringing up of the religious argument.  Since we at AGFC are politically and religiously neutral we refuse to engage in such debates. However, we can list lots of ways in which heterosexuals try not to reproduce. The use of contraceptives and other birth control methods are popular than ever. Why aren’t the users called “self indulgent“?


Homosexuals tend to label recklessly and unjustly all those who oppose homosexual activity as “homophobic”: the term “homophobia” itself is intended to denote a disorder. In this way they seek to impose their own disordered behaviour and lifestyle on society under the guise of tolerance. At the core we are dealing here, not with love, but with queer lust and the destruction of the family unit – the fundamental cell of society.

Religious anti-gay activists tend to label recklessly and unjustly the sexual orientation of non-heterosexual person as a “depraved lifestyle” and a “disordered sexual inclination” as if homosexuality is a scientifically documented disorder or something to be ashamed about. In this way they seek to impose and force their religious and personal interpretation of the Bible on society with their theocratic agenda under the guise of  “love'”, “compassion” and “humility” towards homosexuals. At the core we are dealing here, not with “love”, “compassion” or “humility” but with bigotry, hatred and a world-view similar to white supremacists and anti-Semitic people.

We did an analysis about the use of the word homophobia here:


2 responses to “Rebuttal to the article “Society should strongly oppose homosexual acts””

  1. Melloroqr says :

    I really enjoy your rebuttals and love the fact that a website with this aim exists;
    especially when the focus is squarely on the anti-gay rhetoric of Jamaicans. In this climate, it is much needed and for that reason, you have your work cut out for you. But might I suggest further proofreading…? Trust that, I too go into a jumbled mess sometimes when I see the blatant lies and warped logic of homophobes lol. But either way, you are doing a brilliant job and I look forward to your posts.

  2. femrights88 says :

    Reblogged this on femrights88 and commented:
    I wish to show my support to the article “A gays life is not an easy road” dated Thursday July 19, 2012 which gave insight on homophobia in our country.
    I am a lesbian leaving in Jamaica for most of my life and I have observed and even experienced the harsh verbal and physical abuse of this society supposedly claimed by Former ACP Les Green as “not homophobic”. But then again what does Mr. Green or Ms. Blaine really know about being a gay man or woman and having to live in a country such as this or better yet, what do they know about being ostracized from your community or family for being who you were born to be and that’s “GAY”?
    As a lesbian I have suffered too much and I will no more. I remember as a teenager suffering from major depression as I couldn’t understand why loving another woman was so wrong and why I would experience God’s Wrath for how I knew he made me. Being abandoned by my family and being told harshly by my mother of how much I would be killed by my father if the news got to him. Being verbally and physically assaulted by a community members that you’ve grown with and not having the support of the police. Being stopped and threatened by random thugs on your way home and told: “Just like how dem a kill di batty man dem, mi a guh rape yuh an kill yuh”, because my attire was too masculine for a woman. Tell me Jamaica is this the mission that we are on for this our 50th year? To destroy the Jamaican LGBT community? The same people who have also helped to build this nation.
    Jamaica we need to consider, implement and liberate in order to move forward as a nation. I am also Jamaican and Jamaica has proved herself not to be for women loving women.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: