Dear Reader,

Once again, the issue of homosexuality and the homosexual "lifestyle" is back on the national agenda; with the debate under way about the introduction of certain textbooks into schools and the definitive response from the Ministry of Education on the matter.

As one would expect, this continues to be a "wedge" issue, even while the voices in favour of "liberalising" the educational content are in the minority. As I read and listened to opinions on the issue being presented and defended, it occurred to me that the topic requires a much deeper and wider discussion, and raises some very serious questions about homosexuality and national policy, as well as the social, cultural, legal and religious ramifications of certain types of educational material being introduced into our schools.

The controversy surrounds a textbook for schools in which the family is being redefined to include two women and two men as parents. For me, the question is, whose definition is this, and are we to understand that our children are to be "re-educated" that there is in fact a new definition of family? The idea "let all views contend and let the people decide" certainly cannot apply to children. Essentially, children are like sponges. Whatever you teach them they accept, and that is why the debate about what children are taught is so important.

Fundamentally, the teaching of values and morals surrounding the issue of human sexuality and sexual preferences ought to be done at home. For a textbook that essentially challenges the conventional definition of family to be introduced into our schools, without parental consent or input, is not only ludicrous, it's totally unacceptable.
The report of what happened in a California school district is instructive. In their book, The Facts on Homosexuality, John Ankerberg and John Weldon cite the following:

"In Marvin County, CA, all second through fifth graders at Pleasant Valley school were called to an assembly put on by a local theatre group. The group taught the children slogans such as, "I'm gay and it's okay." The skits included one in which Rapunzel cut her hair and ran away with her girlfriend. One fourth-grade child went home and told his parents that he learned about families with two daddies and two mommies, and words like "homosexual" and "lesbian". One fourth-grade girl reportedly asked her father if she was a lesbian because she liked girls better than boys. Many parents were outraged because they had not been informed of the assembly or the material it would address."

Not only should parents be consulted and engaged, but the very persons who are delivering the education in schools, our teachers, must have an understanding and appreciation of the core issues, and be able to facilitate healthy and balanced discussions on the subject. As I listened to some of our intellectuals debate the topic, I asked myself the question, "How many of our teachers are able, let alone willing, to engage their students in that level of discourse?"

Of course, Jamaica has a particular problem, in that a large number of our parents are either illiterate or semi-literate, and just don't have the requisite "tools" or skills to properly discuss and evaluate the issue. In our country, we are still at first base, trying desperately to build and restore family life based on the definition and practices we have had for generations. For us to now compound the issue by advancing a new definition and model of who and what a family is seems problematic at best. Yet another concern is, how do you "educate" children about homosexuality in a country where the practice is illegal?

Of greater concern to me is what I call "the marching brigade of homosexual activism" across the planet, and its implications for national policies and legislation. Let no one fool you. In the same way that a group of men gathered together around a table in Europe and decided to carve up the entire earth for their own self-interest, and then to enslave the majority of people on the planet, is the same way that the powerful homosexual lobby is seeking to "homosexualise" the world. The deliberate and calculated strategy that is employed is not only about blacklisting and starving entertainers, and silencing public officials. The objective is to work to overturn the laws of sovereign nations and to then effectively influence national policies. But the most powerful strategy is what I call the "socialisation of the young". The plan is that you "teach the children, and you win the war".
As descendants of slaves, we know more than anybody else what the noted scholar Paulo Freire meant when he wrote that "manipulation of the mind is the greatest form of conquest". It is clear to me that the homosexual lobby understands that too.

My own position on homosexuality is very clear and simple. I love all of God's creations - heterosexuals and homosexuals alike - and I understand that all of us are prone to excesses, rebellion and sin. I believe that every adult has a right to his or her own sexual preference, and that sex is a private, not a public matter. What I don't accept is "force-feeding" or manipulation. It is also clear to me that if the homosexual movement is completely successful, the world as we know it would cease to exist.

With love,
bab2609@yahoo.com

The Audacity of Art

Marjorie Whylie to receive Stella Gregory Award

Traditional Thanksgiving offerings at EVITAS