Difference Between Bi-sexual and Pan sexual

There is some overlap when defining bisexual and pansexual orientation; however, there are important differences between the two identities.

Bisexual people are attracted sexually and romantically to both males and females, and are capable of engaging in sensual relationships with either sex. Despite being able to form meaningful, lasting relationships with both sexes, bisexual individuals may, to a small or large degree, have a preference for one sex over the other.

Similarly, pansexual people may be sexually attracted to individuals who identify as male or female; however, they may also be attracted to those who identify as intersex, third-gender, androgynous, transsexual, or the many other sexual and gender identities. The latter distinction is what draws the line between pansexuality and bisexuality.

People who self-identify as pansexual do so with purpose, to express that they are able to be attracted to various gender and sexual identities, whether they fall within the gender binary or not. Recognition of the existence of different genders and sexualities is a major aspect of pansexual identity. Pansexual people are bisexual, in-fact; however, bisexuality does not place the same emphasis on sexual and gender identity awareness, but more simply indicates attraction to the two (generally accepted) biological sexes.

The differences between the two sexual identities are undermined by the fact that some people who consider themselves pansexual identify themselves as bisexual out of convenience, as it’s a more widely known sexual identity. In addition, some people who consider themselves bisexual may be open to dating someone who falls outside the gender binary.

Self-perception, rather than objective sexuality, determines which sexual identity an individual chooses to embrace. Simply being attracted to both biological sexes does not mean one considers oneself bisexual. In fact, many people at one time or another will have some romantic or sexual experience or feelings toward each sex, though, most would not embrace the bisexual label. 

Similarly, being attracted to people who embrace varied identities does not mean that individual will identify as pansexual. There are few organizations which are geared solely for those who identify as pansexual, and many bisexual organizations include alternative identities such as: pansexual, omnisexual, multisexual, and other non-monosexualities, so representation and visibility likely also play a part in how people choose to self-identify.

There is some controversy over the two labels, as some in the bisexual community feel as though the pansexual label is a form of bisexual erasure and that the bisexual identity is already inclusive of those who have an attraction to those who fall anywhere along the gender continuum and outside of it. There is a feeling that pansexual people are simply avoiding the bisexual label due to the stigmas associated with it (that bisexual people are simply greedy and promiscuous, and spread disease among both the heterosexual and homosexual communities). Conversely, many in the pansexual community feel as though these beliefs are forms of prejudice and pansexual erasure.

Not only those who identify as biologically male or female identify as bisexual, the gender identities of people who use and feel comfortable with this label vary. 

The pansexual label; however, is more accommodating for those, regardless of their own gender identity, who sometimes do not fit neatly into the male or female genders, for example, when people who are engaged in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship and their partner transitions from male-to-female or female-to-male. 

Although, some choose to take on change their sexual identity according to the gender to which their partner has transitioned, an increasing number have chosen to self-label as pansexual, queer, or one of the other non-monosexual identities. The pansexual identity is much more accommodating to the coupling of individuals who embrace various sexual and gender identities.

Many people strongly identify as either bisexual or pansexual, and never use the labels interchangeably. Each community is represented by its own flag, set of colors, and general ideologies. The bisexual pride flag is striped with the colors royal blue, magenta, and lavender, representing same gender attraction, opposite gender attraction, and attraction to both genders, respectively. The pan-sexual flag is striped with the rose, blue, and gold, representing the female gender, male gender, and third-gender, respectively. 

The third-gender includes those who are intersex, genderqueer, transsexual, androgynous, and other who identify as being both genders. Each flag is representative of the overarching ideologies underlying the bisexual and pansexual identities, with bisexuality indicating the capacity to be sexually attracted to and engage romantic relationships with both sexes/genders, and pansexuality indicating the ability to have romantic attractions and relationships with people of various genders and sexualities.
Bisexual is being sexually attracted to both genders, male and female, while pansexual is being capable of having romantic feelings and attraction to males, females, and third gendered individuals.

Bisexual identity more so establishes attraction to both genders, whereas pansexual identity more so recognizes the existence of other genders (third genders) and the capacity to be sexually attracted to individuals identifying as these various genders.

The bisexual and pansexual communities have their own flags, colors, and ideologies.

Pansexual identity is more accommodating for individuals who engage in relationships with people of varying genders and sexualities.

Peace and tolerance

H

What goes on in the minds of the overly religious?

Sometimes I wonder what goes on in the minds of some overly religious people. Do their minds function like regular people or having been addled by the constant bombardment of religious drivel, it functions like that of a person flirting with insanity?

I don't say this to be unkind, it's what I honestly feel because I find that the greater the religious indoctrination, the lesser the ability to reason rationally. Take for example, that Pat Robertson guy on television. The things that come of out his mind sometimes make me wonder if he should be locked away in a padded cell somewhere.

Closer to home there are columnists and men of the cloth who believe that legislation currently before Parliament - the anti-buggery law, legislation of abortion and the seven-day flexi-week - are signs of an all-out attack against the Church. For an organisation that is rapidly losing relevance in today's society, who really needs to attack the Church?

The Church gets all riled up over issues that don't concern them - what happens in the bedrooms of consenting adults and what a woman chooses to do with her body. And what exactly does giving someone the option of working longer hours over a longer period of time have to do with Church?

And why has the Church been silent on those pastors who want to have their way with the women in their congregations?

The Church has become irrelevant primarily because of its inability to make an impact on a society where people are fed up of the rhetoric; the fire and brimstone and the ever-returning Kingdom of the Lord, not to mention its constant thirst for money and its frightening silence on serious issues that affect people in the communities in which they operate.

For example, people are being beheaded left, right and centre in Jamaica. The economic situation has many Jamaicans terrified of what the future holds as the dollar continues to slide and jobs are hard to come by. But the Church gets all riled up over gay issues and casinos. You want to see the Church excited, mention homosexuality or gambling and what happens next is like watching piranhas in a feeding frenzy.

Part of the problem is that the Church has become as polarising a force when they should be a force for understanding and healing. The recent gay marches are an example of that. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable of anything biblical but I am sure that if Jesus was alive today to see how churches are against gays he would go nuts.

The Church should be teaching us how to get along even though we disagree on these social issues, teaching us tolerance, teaching us how to care for our neighbours, but it chooses to teach hatred and segregation and encourages this society to discriminate against people who are different, just because they are different.

That to me is counter to what anything that Jesus would have taught back when he was here on earth more than 2000 years ago. If anyone is on the attack, it's the Church that is.

The flexi-week thing is just ridiculous. What, are people only allowed to worship on a specific day? What is the Church saying that if you are a Christian and get on your knees each night to pray and worship, that doesn't count? What if you choose to do your worshipping at night, now that you have more time as you don't have to work eight hours a day five days a week? Doesn't that count?

I mean, I often wonder if many of these religious types really think about the message they are sending to people out there. Madness doesn't attract people, it scares people and that is why the Church struggles to get people.

Send comments to levyl1@hotmail.com

ENDS

Meanwhile in case you missed it

Photo not included in original piece, see more here: 

Betty Ann Blaine’s arrant nonsense request of Peter King Tapes

Scottish Trans and Intersex people no longer must divorce before legally transitioning .............

In the same week as the 35th anniversary of the rainbow flag, stonewall riots 44th anniversary, the US Supreme Court strike down of DOMA, Australia's passage of a Intersex inclusive bill (1st ever) comes news for the transgender community in Scotland.

Scottish transgender people who wished to change gender markers legally were first required to divorce and resubmit a application for a civil partnership which was reserved for same sex couples. This process was stressful, costly and time consuming.

Under the new The Equal Marriage Bill, to be published today transgender people wishing legal gender recognition will no longer be forced to divorce first, however if a trans person wishes to divorce a interim certificate would be issued during the process. The full Gender Recognition Certificate(GRC) will not be issued until the divorce process is complete unnecessarily delaying transition.

The Scottish Transgender Org. posted to facebook voicing their objection to Gay Star News misquoting them about the bill writing "We have NOT "applauded the bill for being tight and clearer" and have asked Gay Star News to remove that erroneous line. 

The Alliance commented almost immediately "Gay Star News have just apologized to us and confirmed they will correct the article. Gay Star News has always made some erroneous lines in their rush to report and ingratiate themselves in the LGBT news business. They did so with the homeless MSM issue here in Jamaica aided and abetted by local voices 

some time ago and after several concerns expressed the article remains up to date. Other advocates and voices worldwide have been expressing some concerns about the efficacy of the GSN see more HERE for that, in the meantime

The article now reads:

Nathan Gale, a Development Worker for STA, said: ‘We are delighted that the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill has been launched today.

‘We are particularly pleased that transsexual people will no longer be forced to divorce in order to have their gender legally recognized.

‘There are some outstanding issues for transgender people which we will continue to press with the Scottish Parliament and Government. But this is a substantial step towards equal marriage rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.’

According to the Scottish Transgender org mailer:

What the bill means for married transgender people where they and their spouse wish to continue their marriage:

• An application to the gender recognition panel is made

o To confirm that the couple wish to remain married, a statutory declaration will be submitted by the trans person’s spouse stating that they consent to the marriage continuing after gender recognition

• If the application is successful a full Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) will be issued

• The Gender Recognition Panel will send a copy of the GRC to the Registrar General for Scotland

• Regulations will be made by the Registrar General for issuing a suitable additional revised marriage certificate to the couple (showing new name and gender)

What the bill means for married transgender people where either/both they and/or their spouse do not wish to continue their marriage:

• An application to the gender recognition panel is made without any statutory declaration from the spouse

• If the application is successful an interim Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) will be issued

• Either the transgender person or their spouse can initiate divorce using the interim GRC

• Once the divorce is completed the interim GRC is replaced with a full GRC

We are concerned that this process could lead to unreasonable delay in the granting of a full GRC if the spouse is uncooperative and seeks to delay the divorce process.

We will be pushing to prevent such unreasonable delays being possible.

What the bill means for civil partnered transgender people:

There will be two recognition routes for civil partnered transgender people to select from.

First option:

• An application is made to the panel and an interim gender recognition certificate is issued

• The couple either change their civil partnership into a marriage or dissolve their civil partnership

• The interim gender recognition certificate will be replaced with a full GRC

Thanks also to planet transgender for the heads up.

J-FLAG finally shows open Support for the Constitutional Challenge to Buggery Law by Javed Jaghai

Why oh why has it taken so long for JFLAG to respond to repeated calls from frustrated community influentials to show their open support for the challenge by their own Education Officer Javed Jaghai is a mystery to us all objective thinkers but here comes a press release from them, too little too late if you ask me as it looks as if it is Javed and his team on his own doing this. It is unbelievable the step-n-fetch it modus operandi of JFLAG they always seem to be catching up with the rest of the community. 

Word of this case and that of Mr Tomlinson's tolerance ad matter have been in the public domain forever and it is now that JFLAG finally comes with a release, where is the leadership and taking the reigns? The limp-wristedness continues it seems. The release read as follows:

J-FLAG Supports Constitutional Challenge to Buggery Law

J-FLAG supports the constitutional challenge to the ‘buggery law’ by our Education & Outreach Officer, Javed Jaghai.

As Executive Director, I accompanied Javed to court on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 in order to get a first-hand account of the proceedings and also to explore the possibility for J-FLAG to formally join the proceedings in this landmark constitutional challenge. We will soon update you on the progress of this endeavour.

We were advised by our legal representative that the Chambers of Justice Carol Edwards would be too small to accommodate all interested parties and their lawyers, and as such we should try to limit the numbers of our supporters. This turned out to be true, and we had to move to a court room in order to accommodate the almost two dozen lawyers, including three Queens Counsels, and their clients.

The outside of the Supreme Court was full of media personnel who were eager for coverage of Javed and his team as they entered and exited the court. There was also a small but vocal group of women who expressed their opposition to any changes being made to the buggery law.

At last count there are eleven (11) interested parties opposing the claim who will be joining the Attorney General who represents the Government of Jamaica in constitutional matters such as this.

To this date they are:

1. Lawyers Christian Fellowship (LCF)

2. Hear the Children’s Cry (Betty-Ann Blaine)

3. Citizens for Truth and Justice (Catholics)

4. Love March Movement

5. Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS)

6. Jamaica Association of Evangelicals

7. Ethiopian Orthodox Church

8. Independent Churches (Bishop Adegold)

9. Holiness Christian Church

10. Christian Brethren Assemblies of Jamaica

11. Church of God in Jamaica.

Note: The Marcus Garvey Movement has applied to be joined as well but that application has not yet been served.

Lead Attorney for the claimant, Maurice Tomlinson, agreed that the groups should be allowed to join in the matter since the case is of national importance and therefore all views should contend.

Essentially, Justice Edwards collapsed a number of the groups into one and called them ‘The Church’. Only LCF, JCHS and Hear the Children’s Cry will be heard separately.

The content of Javed’s affidavit was brought into question as aspects were said to be hearsay and were therefore deemed offensive to the rules of evidence. The judge requested that the affidavit be amended to remove the offending parts and re-submitted to the court by Friday July 5, 2013 . Another 3-hour case management session has been set for Friday October 4, 2013 to address the substantive administrative matters regarding the proceedings.

This is an exciting time for J-FLAG and the Jamaican Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) community in general as this case seeks to determine that the retention of the anti-buggery law in its current form is a contravention of our constitutional rights to privacy and equality before the law. The buggery law criminalizes certain sexual acts of consenting adults in private and this is something that J-FLAG and many of its partners in civil society finds to be an injustice and offensive to the concept of social equality.

We look forward to the resumption of this case and by our participation we expect to make an important contribution to the improvement of the quality of citizenship and life of LGBT Jamaicans.

ENDS

meanwhile here is the ED on radio last evening, an interview I missed with the new President of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship

The Rainbow Flag is 35 today

A milestone indeed for the symbol of LGBT prowess worldwide.

The rainbow flag, sometimes LGBT pride flag or gay pride flag, is a symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) pride and LGBT social movements in use since the 1970s. The colors reflect the diversity of the LGBT community, and the flag is often used as a symbol of gay pride in LGBT rights marches. It originated in California, but is now used worldwide.

Designed by San Francisco artist Gilbert Baker in 1978, the design has undergone several revisions to first remove then re-add colors due to widely available fabrics. As of 2008, the most common variant consists of six stripes, with the colors red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. The flag is commonly flown horizontally, with the red stripe on top, as it would be in a natural rainbow.

The original gay-pride flag flew in the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade on June 25, 1978. It has been suggested that Baker was inspired by Judy Garland's singing "Over the Rainbow" and the Stonewall riots that happened a few days after her death. The flag also strongly resembles the ribbon colors of the WWI Victory Medal, though no connection is evidenced. Another suggestion for how the rainbow flag originated is that at college campuses during the 1960s, some people demonstrated for world peace by carrying a Flag of the Races (also called the Flag of the Human Race) with five horizontal stripes (from top to bottom they were red, black, brown, yellow, and white). Gilbert Baker is said to have gotten the idea for the rainbow flag from this flag in borrowing it from the Hippie movement of that time largely influenced by pioneering homosexual activist Allen Ginsberg. The flag consisted of eight stripes; Baker assigned specific meaning to each of the colors:

hot pink: sexuality

red: life

orange: healing

yellow: sunlight

green: nature

turquoise: magic/art

indigo/blue: serenity/harmony

violet: spirit

Thirty volunteers hand-dyed and stitched the first two flags for the parade.

Original eight-stripe version designed by Gilbert Baker in 1978

Version with hot pink removed due to fabric unavailability
(1978–79)

Six-color version popular since 1979. Indigo changed to royal blue.

After the November 27, 1978, assassination of openly gay San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk, demand for the rainbow flag greatly increased. To meet demand, the Paramount Flag Company began selling a version of the flag using stock rainbow fabric consisting of seven stripes of red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, blue, and violet. As Baker ramped up production of his version of the flag, he too dropped the hot pink stripe because of the unavailability of hot-pink fabric. Also, San Francisco-based Paramount Flag Co. began selling a surplus stock of Rainbow Girls flags from its retail store on the southwest corner of Polk and Post, at which Gilbert Baker was an employee.

In 1979 the flag was modified again. When hung vertically from the lamp posts of San Francisco's Market Street, the center stripe was obscured by the post itself. Changing the flag design to one with an even number of stripes was the easiest way to rectify this, so the turquoise stripe was dropped, which resulted in a six stripe version of the flag — red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet.

In 1989, the rainbow flag came to nationwide attention in the United States after John Stout sued his landlords and won when they attempted to prohibit him from displaying the flag from his West Hollywood, California, apartment balcony

For the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots in 1994, flag creator Baker was commissioned to create the world's largest rainbow flag. It took months of planning and teams of volunteers to coordinate every aspect. The flag utilized the basic six colors and measured thirty feet wide. Foot-wide sections of the flag were given to individual sponsors as part of a fundraiser for the Stonewall anniversary event once the event had ended. Afterwards additional large sections of the flag were sent with activists and they were used in pride parades and LGBT marches worldwide. The Guinness Book of World Records confirmed it as the world's largest flag.

In 2003 Baker was again commissioned to produce a giant flag. In this case it marked the 25th anniversary of the flag itself. Dubbed "25 Rainbow Sea to Sea" the project entailed Baker again working with teams of volunteers but this flag utilized the original eight colors and measured a mile-and-a-quarter (2 km) across Key West, Florida from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf Coast Sea. The flag was again cut up afterward, and sections sent to over a hundred cities worldwide.

Variations

Many variations of the rainbow flag have been used. Some of the more common ones include the Greek letter lambda (lower case) in white in the middle of the flag and a pink triangle or black triangle in the upper left corner. Other colors have been added, such as a black stripe symbolizing those community members lost to AIDS. The rainbow colors have also often been used in gay alterations of national and regional flags, replacing for example the red and white stripes of the flag of the United States. In 2007, the Pride Family Flag was introduced at the Houston, Texas pride parade.

In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, AIDS activists designed a "Victory over AIDS" flag consisting of the standard six-stripe rainbow flag with a black stripe across the bottom. Leonard Matlovich, himself dying of AIDS-related illness, suggested that upon a cure for AIDS being discovered, the black stripes be removed from the flags and burned.

Other countries' LGBT communities too have adopted the rainbow flag. South Africa with one of the most liberal constitutions in the world, has recently adopted The LGBT flag of South Africa at one of the world's biggest costume parties the Mother City Queer Project 2010 to a crowd of 10 000 party goers. The creator Eugene Brockman said "the flag honors every Gay Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender person as they make the Rainbow Nation dazzle".

Scenes from anti gay Lovemarch at Heroes Circle

It seems the Lovemarch edition of today's planned anti gay/pro buggery review public event brought out a small crowd at Heroes Circle in capital city Kingston, I was expecting far bigger numbers given how the events this and other in Montego Bay for 6pm were touted and the amount of free air time they got via interviews and talk show attention.

.... so they want to keep the buggery law? ..... so men can remain down low in the church and hide to regularise themselves I suppose. They want to continue police the use of my anatomy in a private space at that and with consent I am still being cock blocked, sheesh.

They want the buggery review to go on not be stopped as their message and that of others before the announcement from government that it is coming soon

A poor attempt as masking their real goal here which is the buggery law's retention yet barely looking at the real societal ills of the day that are far more egregious and visible, they were silent for example when four young girls were murdered in 48 hours at different points on the island.

In 2012 when a pregnant woman was shot by a male police man in Portland not a word came from them or the other anti gay groups out and about today but they are loud when it comes to homosexuality. 

How selective on the things of private matters between consenting adults but numb on the gruesome atrocities right before our eyes everyday. Oh yea hypocrites

Crowd looks rather small I was expecting more persons or are the public too caught up in their own personal issues to be bothered with this?

Is it that persons feel the buggery review is a done deal or it will be at least decriminalized at best repealed?

A prominent attorney-at-law is urging that the conscience vote for the review of the law be done with the views of the members of the constituency taken into consideration, rather than the vote solely being made by the parliamentarians.

Shirley Richards of the anti gay parent group to Lovemarch wants the voting to be done with the views of the constituency and that these votes should be made public.

"They (parliamentarians) shouldn't be voting on their own conscience. They are representing the people. We want to know how the representatives in parliament vote on this issue. The people should know how their representatives vote," she said.

Referendum

Another legal luminary, Bert Samuels, explained that it certainly will be interesting to see how the parliamentarians vote on this issue. He also said that having a referendum on this matter would represent the highest form of democracy.

"I think there will be a toss-up between fundamentalist Christian values on one side and the liberals on another. Having a referendum on this matter would display the highest form of democracy," he said.

Seventh Day Adventists absent from both marches?

So it seems as The Seventh-Day Adventist Church (SDAC), Jamaica's largest single denominational group will not be participating in the anti-gay peace march that the partnership prayer ministry — Prayer 2000 as reported by perpetual post a SDA linked blog. Nigel Coke, Communications Director for the Jamaica Union of Seventh-Day Adventists, told Perceptual Post that the church was not consulted on the matter hence they will not be participating.

In October of 2012, The Seventh-Day Adventist Church reaffirmed its stance against members of the LGBT community, but also softened the denomination’s position statement to offer compassion toward gays and lesbians.

The Church's Official Statement on Homosexuals states that "Jesus affirmed the dignity of all human beings and reached out compassionately to persons and families suffering the consequences of sin. He offered caring ministry and words of solace to struggling people, while differentiating His love for sinners from His clear teaching about sinful practices. As His disciples, Seventh-day Adventists endeavor to follow the Lord’s instruction and example, living a life of Christ-like compassion and faithfulness."

Here is one of their leaders Daniel Thomas with some appeal to pray:

photos courtesy of Kaneal Gayle on Twitter

Splintering in the church camp regarding this issue or the usual territorial-ism between denominations where some feel they are too good to do certain things or it is beneath them to be seen in certain activities? let me play devil's advocate here; was the SDA not asked due to the perception that there are many down low members in that section of religiosity?

Much to come as this plays out I can assure you.

meanwhile downlow activity in the church revealed as an usher is booted following some hanky panky. According to a tabloid paper, strange these stories are suddenly making their way out now:

A male usher from a Clarendon church was fired from his job and booted from the church recently, after he was reportedly caught having sex with another man at his work place, THE STAR understands.

The usher was fired more than two weeks ago but was unceremoniously dismissed from the church two Sundays ago, after turning up for divine worship.

Reports reaching THE STAR are that the usher, who also sings on the choir, joined the church two years ago from another congregation, some of whose members had suspected him of having homosexual tendencies.

He was reportedly caught by his boss recently with one of his co-workers having sex in a bathroom.

It was learnt that his boss made an alarm and other workers in the establishment decided that they were not going to work with both men again, as they felt uncomfortable having them around. This forced their boss to dismiss the two with immediate effect.

THE STAR understands that the boss got word to the leadership of the church informing them of the homosexual act, as well as informing them that he was fired. Word is that the usher turned up for ushering duties on Sunday but was told not to work as his service was no longer required.

It is also learnt that a church members meeting was called and a letter was read out to the usher informing him of the report from his boss and that he was no longer a member of the congregation, as no one with homosexual tendencies can be allowed to be a member of the church.

Word has since spread in the community where the church is located that the former usher was sent packing from the church because of his homosexual act.

ENDS

Yet these same churches by their actions would want us to believe that are infallible. Below see TVJ's coverage of the Montego Bay leg of the anti gay marches:

Now this?!

Betty Ann Blaine’s arrant nonsense request of Peter King's Alleged Sex Tapes (the murdered gay Ambassador)

also see: Shame On Church - Clergyman Charges Christians To Focus On Serious Crimes, Not Anti-Gay Protest
Peace and tolerance 

H

Is praying for homosexual change bordering on blasphemy?

Yes, I’ll answer before getting into this entry, this is how I am made by God and to ask him to change me to please those with their indifference is flying in his face of his handy work. I never conditioned or committed abuse against another prepubescent individual in some supposed bid to convert others; I resent being lumped as merely a child rectum hunter by ignorant religious folk! I have no deviant diagnosable disorder.

On reparative therapy and God taken from "For The Bible Tells Me So" documentary

also see: The Buggery Review announcement HERE and “Unnatural” Nature, Immoral Butterflies: The Great Cover-Up of Animal Homosexuality and List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

This may sound a bit simplistic for some especially those theologians and academics who like to over intellectualise everything these days but sometimes the discourse borders on the ridiculous if one were to seriously look at it. If I am made in the image and likeness of the creator and we accept that; we see just about 450 other species of living things as believed also created by God who naturally display homosexual and transgender tendencies where some such as sea horses have varying gender roles in rearing their young or certain types of beetles and fish changing their gender in the face of a missing male in their cohort then is homosexuality natural then given the mounting evidence presenting itself?

The nature versus nurture debate resurfaced locally recently with the anti gay voice of Sociologist Reverend Peter Espeut declaring without any solid physiological proof that Gays are made and not born and that the word homophobia was used to abuse Christians as hate speech . As a gay man at forty years old Reverend Espeut and his supporters including those who will be marching today June 23, 2013 in Kingston and Montego Bay supposedly against homosexuality and the legalization or decriminalization of buggery as several legal challenges are lined up and a promised buggery review by the present government wishes to tell me how I feel and what I always knew that I liked boys from a very early age, I was not made into this nor forced by anyone via homo paedophile circumstances. It is regrettable however that some persons have been inappropriately exposed to sex or initiated forcefully by persons who can be diagnosed by the proper professional as having a deviant attraction to prepubescent persons or children but that is totally different from homosexuality which is not considered a disorder by the requisite expertise in psychology.

A recent position paper (try to stomach it) by the Christian Brethren Assemblies Jamaica (CBAJ) in 2012/3 said among other things the following: (my two cents bracketed)

The Scriptures prescribe and promise God’s blessing on life-long heterosexual union in marriage, and chastity in all other circumstances. They are uniform throughout in forbidding the practice of homosexuality.

Same-sex attraction cannot be consummated within God’s design for human sexuality. It is possible by God’s grace for those with same sex attraction to live a chaste life. Choosing to indulge in any sexual acts in thought or deed is sinful. The Scriptures, however, affirm the value of normal and healthy godly friendships. (Proof is needed here CBAJ and gay Christians are an anomaly?)

Any lifestyle obsessed with and/or dominated by personal sexual fulfilment  whether heterosexual or homosexual, is contrary to God’s law. (Which book(s) says this?)

Homosexual acts deny the God-designed complementary nature of the sexes and do not have the potential to be procreative. (An embryo can be created without copulation but from stem cells of two persons of the same sex)

MEDICAL

The causes of same-sex attraction appear to be multi-factorial and may include developmental, psychosocial, environmental and biological factors. There is no credible evidence at this time that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. (The INAH3 hypothalamic Simon LeVay 1991 study proves that there is biological difference in gay and straight men, gay sheep studies etc, more below)

Acting on homosexual attraction is voluntary (as is heterosexual attraction as well). Claims of genetic or environmental determinism do not relieve individuals of moral responsibility for their sexual behaviour. (That is why there is and ought to be privacy and consent)

Homosexual behaviour can be changed (ask the Ex-Gay movement that). There is valid evidence that many individuals who desired to abstain from homosexual acts have been able to do so. (With sometimes disastrous consequences, abstinence from homosexual acts does not mean that the individual’s sexual orientation has changed)

Some homosexual acts are physically harmful because they disregard normal human anatomy and function (name them please). These acts are associated with increased risks of tissue injury, organ malfunction, and infectious diseases. These and other factors result in a significantly shortened life expectancy. (prove this, typical HIV is a gay disease ploy here, while there may be some tissue damage from hard penetrative anal sex said tissue damage also occurs with vaginal penetrative sex as well when the necessary conditions are not there such as lube or her own moisture from being aroused, there is always some “damage” done after any penetrative sex act to the particular orifice whether vaginal or anal, what I choose to do anatomically is my body my business who are you the CBAJ to interfere in that decision or to raise to the level of law proscriptions to impede my private decision to act?)

Among those involved in homosexual acts, there is an increased incidence of drug and/or alcohol dependence, compulsive sexual behavior, anxiety, depression, and suicide. (As a forty year old gay man IN JAMAICA I have not seen this happen in my community in large numbers no less than heterosexuals who also have their issues to deal with)

SOCIAL

Homosexual relationships are typically brief in duration (confusing exploitive same sex unions with monogamous ones and they do exist). Homosexual behaviour is destructive to the structures necessary for healthy marriages, families and society. (True in a sense as church groups like yours force men to operate on the down low to regularize themselves, case in point the pastor and deacon found in a church in Manchester having sex)

Men who commit homosexual acts have a high incidence of promiscuity, child molestation, and sexually transmitted infections. Homosexual behaviours burden society with increased medical costs, increased disability, and loss of productivity. (Lies, typical conflation of consenting same gender sex with abuse and paedophilia  the latter is a diagnosable disorder homosexuality is NOT)

Homosexual behavior can be self-propagating. Some homosexual groups and individuals engage in active recruitment. A child who is sexually molested has an increased likelihood of later engaging in homosexual acts. There is also an increased incidence of homosexual activity among children raised by same sex couples. Adoption into such environments puts children at risk. (MORE Lies and misunderstanding, typical conflation of consenting same gender sex with abuse and paedophilia  the latter is a diagnosable disorder homosexuality is NOT, several children RIGHT HERE IN JAMAICA have been raised by same sex parents and they are no less damaged or made gay as you put it here, again more fear-mongering and paranoia)

Legalizing or blessing same sex marriage or civil unions is harmful to the stability of society, the raising of children and the institution of marriage. If the only criterion for marriage were mutual consent or commitment, there are no grounds to prohibit polygamy, polyandry or incestuous unions. (No one has asked yet for same sex unions to be legal, heterosexual marriages divorce rates are high so who is really “destroying the family?” / laws already cover polygamy and incest so to suggest that decriminalizing buggery when those laws are separate is a piece of intellectual dishonesty or sheer ignorance on the part of knowledge of our laws)

CBAJ will not support any member in leadership position declaring themselves homosexuals or who confesses to living such a life style. (Outcasts! but didn’t Jesus come for the outcasts? So they must stay down low if they are? What a frightening stance from a religious group?)

CBAJ therefore does not support our marriage officers conducting same- sex unions (who asked? And if such laws were in place the church will not be forced as now obtains to marry persons it can be done by a justice of the peace or other marriage officers and there are many Pastors who are quite willing to do so and in fact have performed civil union ceremonies here many of which I have witnessed. Heterosexuals are already doing a good job of breaking down the family take a look at our local figures of divorce above)

CBAJ does not support sexual abuse of any kind. (As does most right thinking individuals)

CBAJ does not support sexual misconduct of any kind (As does most right thinking individuals hence pedophilia is a diagnosable disorder that can be dealt with homosexuality is NOT and is natural as I live and breathe)

CONCLUSION

The Christian community led by CBAJ must respond to the complex issues surrounding homosexuality with grace, civility, and love. (I agree but with love and understanding not condemnation and instilling shame with reparative therapy but this very position paper is hypocritical and loaded with ideological contradictions)

Christian doctors in particular must care for their patients involved in homosexual behavior in a non-discriminating and compassionate manner, consistent with biblical principles. (Not with reparative therapy as the course of action or supposed restraint of what may be defined as typical homosexual behavior when actions can be restrained by choice orientation cannot)

Anyone struggling with homosexual temptation should evoke neither scorn nor enmity, but evoke our concern, compassion, help, and understanding. Elders and leadership must not be quick to condemn but must strive always for healing and restoration. All are innocent until proven guilty, in this context if a man/woman sins, let him so examine himself before God. God is always the final judge. As long as we have no evidence we will have to leave people to their conscience and to God. (Another ideological contradiction spotted here - Your line item above said – “CBAJ will not support any member in leadership position declaring themselves homosexuals or who confesses to living such a life style.” So if one of your own came out how would he/she be dealt with when in judging them you won’t support them …….. Read out of the church?)

The Christian community must condemn hatred and violence directed against those involved in the homosexual behaviour. (Gratuitous tolerance, true tolerance is what is needed not some flowery statement to look good, accept persons and difference as they come not what suits the CBAJ and forcing same sex attracted persons to go underground even within the CBAJ and indeed other churches in order to regularize themselves)

The Christian community must help society understand that homosexuality has grave spiritual, emotional, physical and cultural consequences. Christians should oppose legislative attempts to grant special rights based on sexual behavior or to equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual marriages. (When no gay rights groups asked for gay marriage rights?)

The Christian community and especially the family must resist stereotyping and rejecting individuals who do not fit the popular norms of masculinity and femininity. Also, it is important for parents to guide their children in appropriate gender identity development. (Gratuitous tolerance and hypocrisy)

For children who are experiencing gender identity confusion, we must provide appropriate role models, and therapy if needed. The Christian community must encourage and strongly support all those who wish to abandon homosexual behaviour  The Christian community should oppose the legalization of same sex marriage and/or blessing and adoption into homosexual environments. (Confusing gender identity issues with homosexuality gender confusion amounts to gender dysphoria or moving towards transgenderism)

God provides the remedy for all moral failure through faith in Jesus Christ and the life changing power of the Holy Spirit. (For physical healing or personal growth etc but not for orientation change not when God already made me so)

Ends

So we see the continued ignorance and conflation between same gender sex and abuse/pedophilia these idiots do not understand that abuse is abuse whether the situation is same sexed or opposite sexed is immaterial, sexual attraction of any adult to a child is a deviant diagnosable disorder as per DSM, homosexuality is not and must never be conflated with abuse which is the common mistake driving this lunacy from the church.

The psychological experts knowing all this whether secular or Christian have deviated from the guidelines as stated in the official guidance manual for this being the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, DSM (fifth version released May 2013) choose to suggest homosexuality is being forced on us and or reparative therapy is to be used to “change” homosexuals to heterosexuals even when warnings have been official sounded by experts in the field that such attempts at change can and have had disastrous consequences for persons targeted in this practice. Aversive conditioning as was practiced in the US at reputed clinic in California in the late eighties has been suggested as well to make the change effective yet not caring about the subject and that somehow spiritual impact can be brought to bear also to make the change permanent. Healing is one thing in my mind as from ailment and disease but a total radical psychological revolution when maybe God wanted me and others like me gay is another matter altogether.

Why would I have been born with this attraction in the first place being so natural to me?

Why are there other species around us displaying innate homosexual tendencies?

Why would I choose something that cause me harm or even my life?

In the face of mounting research in animals as well as humans we are seeing more and more possibilities of some causes relating to innate homosexuality with physiological and biological differences presenting themselves which leave many hold on to the naturalness of this phenomenon. The closure of the main reparative therapy or Ex Gay Ministries in the United States just days ago and the subsequent apology from its founder is the clearest indication yet that messing around with person’s sexual orientation is not on and can have consequences. The repeated stories of inappropriate behaviours by leading Ex-Gay proponents and testimonies by participants tell that it does not work. I too in my early years of realising my sexual orientation questioned God about it and struggled for years in my teens especially with it with no proper psycho social or LGBT affirming sources around to help, so like many others I have had to bump and crash to where I am today. I too prayed incessantly and went into fasting searching in various denominations for “change” as felt the dirty feeling as well and even in the church it was there I found others like me hiding amidst its walls and straight acting to get approval. It was not until the past twenty years of my life and experiences that have centred me including being arrested for the abominable crime of buggery (with no proper proof) consenting adults caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and although the case never went to full trial and adjourned sine die it proved to me that we need to remove the buggery law as it now stands.

What is so difficult about having privacy in my own home and making a decision with another consenting person?

Even if the studies or work of scholars who are gay affirming stands as a testament that researcher’s ideological commitments can coexist with good scholarship it is the essence of the study and methodology that must come or called into question to prove or disprove intellectual dishonesty. A criticism of many anti gay theologians and academics is that Many of the major social and biological researchers and respected authors whose work is cited regularly are gay or lesbian persons, including scholars like Gregory Herek, Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer, Susan Cochran, Lee Beckstead, Douglas Haldeman, Lisa Diamond, Jack Drescher, Ritch Savin-Williams, and others, who else are to set out to prove or disprove the issue of homosexuality than these persons when opposers are just hell bent on remaining just that opposers. In 1957, Evelyn Hooker demonstrated that homosexual persons do not always manifest psychological maladjustment. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed its designation of homosexual orientation per se as a mental illness. The 1986 APA Supreme Court Amicus Curiae brief for Bowers v. Hardwick stated "The first major challenge to the illness model came in 1957 when Dr. Evelyn Hooker determined that homosexual and heterosexual men could not be distinguished from each other on the basis of standard psychological tests, and that a similar majority of the two groups appeared to be free of psychopathology. . . . Extensive psychological research conducted over almost three decades has conclusively established that homosexuality is not related to psychological adjustment or maladjustment. Commentators who argue that there is no biological contribution to the causation of sexual orientation (for instance, that it is all choice) are arguing the indefensible what is clear is that there are so many different avenues for such causes that there is no definitive reason yet determined at best. The research points to a clear contribution of biological factors to sexual orientation. Biology also clearly appears to play a part, but to what extent? There are three major biological causation paradigms driving conversation and research in the causation of homosexual orientation: the maternal stress theory, the fraternal birth order (“older brother”) theory, and the genetic theory. The maternal stress theory posits that maternal stress during pregnancy causes hormonal disturbances in the womb resulting in incomplete masculinisation of male fetuses, which in turn results in homosexuality. Sociologist Lee Ellis developed a full-fledged theory of maternal stress replete with various hypothesized causal mechanisms, and subsequently produced survey evidence suggesting that mothers of homosexual persons did indeed report higher stress during pregnancy than mothers of heterosexuals.

Check out Simon Levay in his own words on his 1991 hypothalamus - IHAH3 autopsy study in an interview with Truthwinsout.

The continued use of flawed studies from the US based NARTH – National Association for the Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality is another disturbing trend as the CBAJ also quoted a series of them in their position paper even the old Spitzer 1975 paper which read: "Like most psychiatrists," says Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change."Acosta, F., (1975) Etiology and treatment of homosexuality: review. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 4:9-29. yet we saw his own renunciation of that position some time ago. This shows the dishonesty therein and how behind the times when it comes to the scientific community’s research and conclusions on the subject. Quoting old 1970s studies showing reparative therapy as working when no follow up evidence has been shown in the vast numbers of them that the subjects remained “un-homosexual” and what is SSAD, same sex attraction disorder? Anyone can skew data to suit their agenda there maybe some guilt on the pro - LGBT agenda side too but I know what I know and I know what I feel.

The other issue of outward displays of same sex attraction being a means by which to “impose” homosexuality is arrant nonsense, why is it that when Jamaicans go to overseas territories they have no choice but to respect difference and see these same ODA and pass by but here it has some imposing imperative hence the fear and paranoia? The original combative position of the St James Ministers’ Fraternal and their planned march against supposed decriminalization of buggery has changed claiming they are now not against homosexuals but the ills of the nation including the legalizing of buggery in the upcoming Javed Jaghai/AIDSFREEWORLD Supreme Court matter slated to commence June 25, 2013. The hypocrisy from the Fraternal is glaring seeing AIDSFREEWORLD also has planned on Monday June 24 a stand of their own.

My prayer is that all this confusion and unneeded paranoia end soon and allows persons to live their truths in this country it is partly because our inability as people generally to really live as who we really are why we have some of the major challenges on the ground.

I am born this way.

A message to the CBAJ, the JCHS and LCF and others with their false dichotomies

From: The Ethics of Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation Author(s): Udo Schüklenk, Edward Stein, Jacinta Kerin, William Byne Source: The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1997), pp. 6-13 Published by: The Hastings Center Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3528773

"Research into the genetic component of some complex behaviours often causes controversy, depending on the social meaning and significance of the behaviour under study. Research into sexual orientation-simplistically referred to as "gay gene" research-is an example of research that provokes intense controversy. This research is worrisome for many reasons, including the fact that it has been used to harm lesbians and gay men. Many homosexual people have been forced to undergo "treatments" to change their sexual orientation. Others chose to undergo them to escape discrimination and social disapprobation. But there are other reasons to worry about such research. The very motivation for seeking an "origin" of homosexuality reveals homophobia. Moreover, such research may lead to prenatal tests that claim to predict for homosexuality. For homosexual people who live in countries with no legal protections these dangers are particularly serious.

“Homosexual people have in the past suffered greatly from societal discrimination. Historically, the results of biological research on sexual-al orientation have been used against them. We have analysed the arguments offered by well-intentioned de-fenders of such work and concluded that none survive philosophical scrutiny. It is true that in some countries in Scandinavia, North America, and most parts of Western Europe, the legal situation of homosexual people has improved, but an adequate ethical analysis of the implications of genetic inquiry into the causes of sexual orientation must operate from a global perspective. Sexual orientation researcher should be aware that their work may harm homosexuals in countries other than their own. It is difficult to imagine any good that could come of genetic research on sexual orientation in homophobic societies. Such work faces serious ethical concerns so long as homophobic societies continue to exist. In so far as socially responsible genetic research on sexual orientation is possible, it must begin with the awareness that it will not be a cure for homophobia and that the ethical status of lesbians and gay men does not in any way hinge on its results."
We also need to be mindful of the correlation and applicability of these studies in our context and society and maybe begin to develop our own data. We see the overuse of a Lancet study by the JCHS head Dr Wayne in the prevention of disease spread imperative in the HIV is a gay disease ploy.

Interestingly today news came to hand: Bill Banning Reparative Therapy in N.J. Approved by Assembly

Gleaner letter: Leave Gays Alone

The World Health Organization and its affiliates have come out against reparative therapy, or what is also called conversion therapy. In fact, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) has recommended to governments, professional associations and all civil society that they inveigh against reparative therapies, saying clinics offering them should be "denounced and subject to adequate sanctions".

As former PAHO director Dr Mirta Roses Periago said on International Day Against Homophobia last year, "Since homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, it does not require a cure. There is no medical indication for changing sexual orientation." see more from Ian Boyne here: Culture Clash On Homosexuality

Peace and tolerance

H