Wed | Aug 16, 2017

Bandooloo logic from pro-gay Gleaner

Published:Friday | June 6, 2014 | 6:00 AM

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The Gleaner's pro-gay agenda is now fully established by way of its constant editorialising upon related issues; evidencing clearly that the newspaper is fully on board with the gay lobby, but done in the guise of a so-called human-rights campaign.

Its latest editorial of June 5, 2014, which happens to be published just two days shy of the 322nd anniversary of the 1692 Port Royal earthquake in Jamaica, is just as culturally disastrous in tone and intent as that infamous earthquake and tsunami which destroyed the then "wickedest" city.

It is clear that The Gleaner's editor has not only become ideologically 'wedded' to the homosexual perversion sweeping the globe like a relentless tsunami, but is also 'wedded' to illogical and aberrant thinking that's characteristic of this perverted lifestyle, and is hell-bent on passing on that thought pattern to the rest of us.

For instance, in The Gleaner's editorial titled 'Same-sex unions and the marriage contract', the pro-gay editor (despite saying otherwise) sought to undermine the exclusivity and sanctity of marriage by pointing to social statistics of failed marriages, et al.

This is as illogical an approach to the issue as would be someone trying to undermine the ideal of honesty and/or principles outlawing stealing by pointing to how many Jamaicans are involved in stealing electricity, or are disregarding copyright laws, or are capturing land by squatting, or are political leaders who are involved in corruption for monetary gain.

Stealing is wrong, and Jamaicans know it, despite the fact that honesty is not practised by many Jamaicans, and no amount of statistics concerning dishonesty among Jamaicans would be able to make stealing an alternative lifestyle that's morally appealing. The same is true for the gay lifestyle and gay marriage that the Gleaner is now pushing.

CORRECT DEFINITION of MARRIAGE

Marriage being defined in Jamaican laws as a union between one man and one woman is not a 'homophobic' principle, contrary to the 'logic' of the Gleaner editorial, but is the correct definition of marriage, despite the statistics of failed marriages. It was, and still is, the correct definition from time immemorial, despite the global gay earthquake and tsunami of late, and it is sad that the leading newspaper in Jamaica is now seeking to pass on 'bandooloo' journalism as being intellectually sound.

Marriage has always been defined as the religiously sanctioned, and community- and state-endorsed union of reproductively compatible humans for the establishment of normal families, and was so long before the newly concocted notion of 'homophobia' by the gay culture! To deny this truthful definition of marriage by anyone is indeed sad!

But what is sadder than The Gleaner's 'coming out' is the fact that it is now firmly settled in its 'marriage' to perverted journalism in this area and is now seeking to produce 'offspring' in the form of its readership, whom it hopes would be characterised by its own perverted ideas of family and marriage!

It is a sad day in Jamaica, just as was the day of the 1692 earthquake and tsunami.

DERRICK GILLESPIE

ddgillespie@live.com

St Elizabeth