Finding which middle ground in the ‘gay debate’?

LGBT rights activists should use this letter as evidence that many Jamaicans remain largely ignorant of facts surrounding the buggery law and other LGBT issues.

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 the piece in the Gleaner one July 29, 2012 entitled “Finding Middle Ground In The Gay Debate”. Find it here:


“I note with interest the remarks made by Les Green that what J-FLAG was describing as anti-homosexual hate crimes were almost entirely crimes perpetrated by homosexuals against one another. He did not speak in generalities, but gave very specific details. 

It certainly demonstrates that J-FLAG, far from being objective, has been pursuing a definite agenda of branding non-homosexuals to be what they are not.”

Despite the fact that Mr Les Green only spoke of murders reported to the police when it concerned gays the writer, Mr. Harold, goes on to stretch his statement to assume he was talking about “anti-homosexual hate crimes”. Of course, murder is not the only crime but of course the anti-gay movement is trying to make the point that once the sodomite doesn’t die after you attack it then you didn’t commit a hate crime especially if it doesn’t report it to the police out of fear so police statistics are skewed in their favour. 

His use of the word “non-homosexual” is quite laughable too as not only does this include bisexual people but he is assuming all so called “non-homosexual” people agree with him. Ignorance is one hell of a thing.


“We have a social situation to be resolved. Consider two men, John and George. Two elderly men who have known one another for a long time, who enjoy one another’s company, visiting one another frequently, and who have no other friend or relative to whom they relate as closely.

George becomes ill and is in intensive care at the hospital, barely conscious. He would like nothing better than a visit from John. But he cannot see John on account of hospital rules, limiting visits to very close relatives or to a spouse. We may assume that both men are normal in the sense described above. Can we share the anguish of both men at being kept apart in this manner?

If we do, does it make a difference if both men were homosexual partners?

There are two situations where close male friends suffer a disadvantage – hospital visits and inheritance. For example, if John lived rent-free in a house owned by George. Upon George’s death, any surviving relative of George would have a prior claim on that property if he did not make a will providing for John, who could very well find himself out of doors. Tragically, many persons do not make wills.

Considerations such as these lead me to a conclusion that favours allowing some type of marital union between homosexual partners, so that, in such extreme situations, the other would enjoy the relationship of spouse. I do not say marriage, but some legal formula which extends such privileges to such partners.”

In trying to find what he considers “middle ground” , Mr. Harold goes on to rudely compare loving and enduring homosexual relationships to mere friendships between two people who he considers “normal”. The only way he thinks that homosexual couples should get any legal benefits is for them to be old, ill and without any family. Only “normal people” must get any state benefits for their relationships without condition. How merciful of you Mr. Harold. Us “abnormal sodomites” who have friendship-like relationships appreciate your gratitude and also your willingness to use this wonderful example in finding a “middle ground”.

Contrary to popular anti-gay opinion gay people live, breath, eat, work and love other people just like “normal people” as Mr. Harold puts it. Inheritance and hospital visitation rights are not the only thing that gays need for their relationships that heterosexuals take for granted. Mr. Harold would know this if he was in a relationship for “normal people”.  Benefits include (but not limited to): tax benefits, employment benefits, pension benefits, child support/ parental responsibility for partner’s child, duty to maintain partner and their child, immigration benefits and protection against domestic violence.


On the other hand, I do believe that we should retain the law which makes buggery a crime. So, I am recognising the treasured relationship between one man and another, whether they have homosexual tendencies or not, but making it clear that any evidence that they actually engage in anal intercourse leaves them open to prosecution.

At the same time, I would not countenance acts of spying in order to make a case against them. Let them be, if they are discreet.

If they are discreet, they would also not offend society by making public displays of their affection for each other. They must be sensitive to what non-homosexuals – i.e., the majority of others – in the society will tolerate.

Mr. Harold will not cease to show he is a merciful man. He says that he does not support repealing or amending the buggery law to allow private anal intercourse but then says the police should not spy on homosexuals when they are doing their business behind closed doors even if the law allows the police to. You will be blessed for having such a kind heart Mr. Harold.


Of course, the reality is different.

Below are the two buggery laws:

Article 76 of the Offences Against the Person Act states:

Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term not exceeding ten years.

Article 77 adds:

Whosoever shall attempt to commit the said abominable crime, or shall be guilty of any assault with intent to commit the same, or of any indecent assault upon any male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding seven years, with or without hard labour.

Below is the “gross indecency law” which mentions that privacy is no excuse:

Article 79 further states:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.

Not only do the above laws not exclude when it is done in private there is actual evidence of police peeping through people’s bedroom windows to charge them for buggery. Since Mr. Harold accuses J-FLAG of not being objective we at AGFC have all the objectivity in the world and will not hesitate to show it.

Proof of police spying in order to make a case against two men:  

Men found guilty of buggery

A FIVE YEAR buggery case against two prominent Manchester men climaxed in the Manchester Circuit Court on Thursday, when both were found guilty by Her Ladyship Ingrid Mangatal.

Police witnesses say they were on patrol on Rembrandt Close investigating drug activities when they surprised the two men watching porn movies in a house while having sex.

At the hearing, scores of curious persons converged near the court to catch a glimpse of and hurled insults at the men.

Read here:


“I would also not be in favour of practising homosexuals adopting and raising children.

Readers will note that I have not addressed the issue of female homosexuality. The reason is that my attitude is framed by the nature of anal penetration. In the first place, there are no erotic zones in or near the anus so that one may say: I have desire. Second, female homosexual practices are innocent of concerns about faecal matter.”

Mr. Harold gave no reason as to why “practising” homosexuals should not raise children. We will assume he has no reason and is ignorant regarding the social science of such. We at AGFC are committed to truth so for those who are interested in a deeper understanding of the science behind LGBT parenting, the American Psychological Association prepared a giant report debunking the myth that gay or lesbian parents pose a disadvantage to children (See here:

The American Psychological Association says “In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.”

Mr. Harold apparently isn’t aware that “non-homosexual/normal people” practise anal intercourse too. According to the  U.S. Government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention almost half of heterosexuals under 45 engage in anal intercourse. (Read here: The “non-homosexual/normal people” community that Mr. Harold is apparently a part of loves anal sex and lots of it too. We think we should remind him that the buggery law for the homosexuals apply to the “non-homosexual/normal people” people too.  According to “The Anus has a large number of nerve endings surrounding it and it is very sensitive. The proper stimulation of this area can heighten a woman’s and also man’s pleasure.”(See here:


One response to “Finding which middle ground in the ‘gay debate’?”

  1. Hilaire says :

    Good critique.

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: