Two men on gay cruise arrested

[DesDownunder]

Most of us may have seen this article on the two guys who got arrested in Dominica whilst on a gay cruise.

So, I thought it might interest you to know that the following fell from the sky last night. I only just had time to read it before it burst into flames. This is what it said;

Intergalactic Starship Cruise advisory notice.

Warning: Do not land on third planet from the nearby sun in this solar system. Severely violent and warring inhabitants are homophobic (anti-same sex relationships...yeah we know that sounds bizarre, and astonishing) they are also bigoted and stll have irrational belief systems based on myths and primitive superstitions known as 'religion'.

Make sure you have activated your ship's cloaking device and BS deflector sheilds if you decide to orbit the planet. Avoid anal probing of inhabitants, it only confuses them. Better still, why not give this solar system a miss and dock directly at the orgies in the Alpha Centauri system?

You might take pity on some of the few intelligent life-forms on the planet and take them with you. You can tell who they are because stand outside their dwellings shining their rainbow beam flashlights into the night skies.

[Chris James]

I am not a cruise taking person, although an Intergalactic version would probably interest me.

Somehow I don't think these two idiots who were having sex out in the open should be pitied. Somehow they had to know that others could see them, and that brings up certain mental conditions that I won't go into. Dolts, baffoons, or just plain idiots, they offended local laws and got locked up.

Sodomy laws can't be flaunted, although in most places they exist with little enforcement...unless you are in Africa. That brings up all kinds of ideas: what does it really mean when they say "when in Rome..." Sodomy seems to have a spiritual connotation there.

But when you let it all hang out like these guys in public I say you get what you deserve. I don't know how sodomy is defined in this tiny country, perhaps it is aimed at gay people more than straight. But I doubt if even a straight couple could copulate in public and get away with it.

I would imagine making love on an intergalactic cruise would be delightful. All those stars and deep dark space. Once the replicator hands you a nutrition bar for dinner, and you get a little time on the holodeck, I would think a good boinking under the stars might be nice. I mean what else would there be to do with all those days, weeks, months, and years at light speed?

[E.J.]

Why would a company schedule an all gay cruise to dock at a country where just being gay is illegal???

Update:

It appears that the two passengers were naked on their balcony in view of the pier and the town and apparently seen by several locals (though perhaps not engaged in buggery, which was dropped). They apologized and paid a $900 fine and were released.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/03/21/43077#comments

[JamesSavik]

The Dominican Republic is a Caribbean toilet. It's so bad, the earthquake that wreaked Hati avoided it.

Write the place off, spend your money elsewhere and let that sanctimonious toilet sink in the Gulf.

[Cole Parker]

Hey, wait a minute. They produce more major league shortstops than any other country in the world.

Just saying.

C

[dude]

Excuse me, but if that sort of behavior by passengers is permitted in public areas of a cruise ship, the Captain and company officials should be arrested as well.

Even in countries where homosexuality is not illegal, public sex usually is.

[DesDownunder]

Perhaps too many people have misinterpreted what a Cruise ship actually is.

Personally I am pleased to say that I get sea sick just watching the water lap at the wharf. I'd rather extend my membership of the mile high club.

Naah, I think I'll stay home and cruise the monkey cage at the zoo. At least they seem to get away with public pubic activities.

[Merkin]

Dominica is different from the Dominican Republic. Another island altogether, it is the northernmost of the Windward Islands.

[Cole Parker]

Ah! What one learns on this forum is amazing.

C

[DKStories]

Mile High club is nothing compared to doing it on a ship that is rockin' and rollin' in heavy seas - then again cruise ships have stabilizers so they are absolutely no fun. What club is it that we join for having had sex while on every ocean of the world? Ditchdigger is for Panama Canal - ah the bad part of getting old...you forget somethings.

[DesDownunder]

Mile High club is nothing compared to doing it on a ship that is rockin' and rollin' in heavy seas - then again cruise ships have stabilizers so they are absolutely no fun. What club is it that we join for having had sex while on every ocean of the world? Ditchdigger is for Panama Canal - ah the bad part of getting old...you forget somethings.

I think I'm at the stage where I don't remember what I'm missing. Ah yes, My memory pills, I must take my memory pills.

[colinian]

They probably thought "doing it" on the balcony of their room was a hoot. But what a stupid thing for them to do!

Colin

[Mountain Dude]

Ah! What one learns on this forum is amazing.

C

hahhhhaaa LOL Good one Cole!!!

[Cole Parker]

So it appears the two men weren't engaging in public sex. They were simply on their balcony while not fully dressed. The report doesn't make it clear, but I'd guess they were sunbathing.

Amazing how things change when you start hearing facts, not news reports.

C

[Gee Whillickers]

Amazing how things change when you start hearing facts, not news reports.

C

You know, it's funny. I first began to learn about this important little fact when I was in elementary school. One day we had some kind of guest speaker in class. I don't remember the details at all, I can't remember who he was, where he was from, even the topic of discussion. But I remember something he said, probably because he repeated it and was so deadly serious when he said it. He said, "Don't believe the news. If it's in the news, it's distorted. Or even an outright lie. Be skeptical. Find other sources."

After he left, I then remember the teacher, seemingly embarrassed, kind of minimize and sugar-coat that message. She basically said he was exaggerating and that the news is accurate. Then she changed the subject.

I didn't give it much more thought until I was in high school, and was present, out of random chance, at an event that was covered that night by the news. I was astounded. Completely gobsmacked. They got it so very, very wrong. They so obviously emphasized all the things that would appeal to a salivating public and utterly ignored other factors, to the point where their editing and emphasis virtually completely changed a couple of people's apparent points of view. I remembered that elementary school speaker on that day.

Then it happened again. Maybe fifteen years ago now. I won't go into detail, but I was working in a job and in a field that semi-regularly was covered by the media. This time I wasn't just a witness, I was completely involved in the series of events. Once again, I was astounded. The grandstanding, the BS, the emphasizing of insignificant things they thought would garner ratings at the expense of fact. Then the real kicker: the reporter read a quote on the TV news that night from one of the people involved. I was standing next to him when he was being interviewed, and I heard every word. He didn't say that quote. At all. Not even close. It was totally and completely fabricated. It wasn't even anything he would ever say, it was just a stupid overly-dramatic pithy statement that the reporter obviously thought would sound cool to end his story with.

I learned my lesson, and it really sunk in. If it's in the mainstream news, it's not news. It's somebody's agenda. It may not have even the slightest similarity to what actually occurred at the event they are reporting on.

[DesDownunder]

What astounds me is that the blatant misrepresentation of the truth is believed to be factual, by so many viewers and readers.

This is equivalent to choosing to go to a movie about, say, vampires. You are well aware that it is a fantasy, a made up story, an entertainment, or at least an attempt at entertainment. So far, so good. You enjoy the movie, it was an okay way to pass the time whilst you increased your girth with soda and popcorn, whilst the cinema industry enlarged its bottom line of profit.

Then it happens, you over hear a conversation between adult patrons who saw the movie. You realise that they are under the impression that it was a dramatisation of real events; that vampires are a flourishing subculture who dwell in the local cemetery. One of the believers informs the group that his uncle saw a vampire once, and it tried to attack him as he walked through the park after midnight. (Have I ever got a different interpretation of that event!)

The point here is that there are, unfortunately, a large number of naïve, or undereducated people who resort to superstition for any number of reasons to make up for their ignorance. Those are the people who believe the news without question, without any scepticism, or any degree of awareness that the 'shock jocks' of the news commentary shows, take advantage of their audiences' susceptibility to blindly believe whatever they tell them. This propaganda does indeed have agendas, and not for the betterment of Mankind.

Life decisions are made, based on misinformation of news commentaries. It is possible to find reports of actual events that deal with simply informing the reader. The BBC and the Aussie equivalent do report factual news. Their faults are more likely, ones of omission, where some sub-editor feels that community responsibility is best served by not telling the whole story. This happens in terms of protection of the public where the truth might cause, for example, panic or civil riot. At worst, this is the point where political agendas may affect how the truth is reported, or not.

It is interesting to consider how 'destructive riot' is applied when reporting what might be termed, 'justifiable rebellion'. The Occupy Wall Street movement being reported as civil unrest with dangers to the public, comes to mind. The early reactionary Tea Party meetings did not get so reported.

Often we can see attempts, by officials, to find excuses for totally unwarranted actions that did get reported. The levels of corruption are legion if not legend.

Where a writer posts an obvious opinion piece, there is an invitation to consider the arguments put forward as concerned opinion. The facts are not distorted, but are presented as a valid point of view to be discussed and further considered.

When facts are misconstrued and presented to deceive and manipulate the reader, then the concern should shift from the story to questioning the integrity of the 'report', but the deception has to be validated and that is often difficult, and don't think for a moment that the manipulators are not aware of how difficult that is.

In all matters of subsidiary discussion and debate, too many people refer to unverified interpretations of 'the news' to bolster their opinion; just like those who think incisor fangs prove vampire movies are based on fact. That's just batty thinking. Sometimes it is best to be laid back and see what happens next, lest we make things worse. Then again, it's unethical to do nothing when help is needed. Such compassion doesn't attract large ratings.

[DKStories]

Yellow journalism has gotten us into several wars from the Spanish-American to the second war in Iraq. The 24-hour news cycle has only made matters worse. Still there are underlying issues here that just have to screamed at by people.

First off - why the hell is a cruise ship full of gay men going to an island that hates gays? Pure stupidity on the part of the cruise line, and every single gay man who signed up to go on that cruise knowing its destinations. Think before you go to a place.

As an example, the DNC this year is in Charlotte, NC. Since he works for the California Dem Party, he goes to every DNC. Last cycle (2008) we were on the field 20 yards away from Barack Obama as he gave his speech at the packed football stadium. He has to go to Charlotte this year, and our original plan included me going as well as taking our kids (my niece and nephew who we have full custody of now).

He's still going. I'm not and the kids aren't because North Carolina is a state that still has sodomy laws on the books and ENFORCES those laws, having arrested gay people several times in the last year. Sure, those people were later let go when the county prosecutor declined to press charges thanks to Lawrence. Still, they spent TWO days in jail and one judge upheld their arrest and confinement because the laws were still on the books.

Our kids were born in NC, and their father still lives there. We had intended on this trip to let the kids see their paternal grandmother for the first time in 5 years, but now we won't because these local laws could be used by the father to try to regain custody. Would he ultimately succeed? Not bloody likely considering the national news story we would make of the attempt. Still, do we put ourselves and our kids through that hell? No, we don't. Instead we choose to not visit North Carolina because it is not gay-friendly.

We do plan to attend the inauguration in January (if the election goes well) and invite the grandmother to come up to Washington, D.C. to visit the kids. We won't take the kids into Virginia, again because it's an anti-gay state. We might visit Maryland. Sometimes caution is best.

There are plenty of examples of gay tourists caught in traps by anti-gay laws of different states or nations. We risked going to Florida several times knowing full well any hospital we go to if we get sick might turn the other way for visitation. Visiting Texas we took a similar risk, but that was with just the two of us. The last time we visited Florida it was with plenty of family members that could and would help out if needed - so we wouldn't face emergency situations alone.

We want to say it ain't so - but this cruise ship story points out an important fact - if you're a gay man, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual in this day and age you have to pay attention to the laws of your state and nation and make wise choices. Many gay couples have chosen to move because their state won't let them adopt, or recognize their relationship. Many more, like us, limit their vacation choices to stay away from locations that are anti-gay. It sucks. I'd love to take my son to Arlington because he wants to be a SEAL and I want him to see the gravestones so he understands it is risky and the price so many have paid. He won't be able to though, because it is in Virginia and that is a danger state.

We all have choices to make in life, and whatever happened to these men on this cruise ship, they should have expected some trouble because they were going to a nation that is anti-gay in its laws.

[E.J.]

For future reference:

http://www.spartacusworld.com/gaytravelindex.pdf

[Merkin]

Thanks, E.J. Some eye-openers there.

[DKStories]

Such a good link EJ and so telling we are not only like 37th but that we are in the "yellow" section as well. It would be interesting to see a listing of US states like this

[colinian]

Great list, EJ. Thank you! We're saving that link.

Colin

[DesDownunder]

Re the Spartacus rating for Australia: The question of marriage for same sex partners is still awaiting deliberation in our parliament. No less than two bills are being prepared. Polls indicate nearly 70% of Australians are in favour of marriage regardless of gender. As marriage falls under federal jurisdiction in Australia we have to wait for the politicians in Canberra to pass one of those bills. However, we already have equivalency for relationships which are judged as being a de facto relationship for couples, gender notwithstanding. My partner and I are considered as a de facto couple for the purposes of my age pension and his unemployment benefit. We are treated exactly the same as a straight couple would be in the same circumstances. Most of the discrimination as regards our relationship and social standing has been removed. Those few discriminations that remain needn't worry most visitors to our country.

We don't have it all, by any stretch of the imagination, but from the standpoint of being accepted, anti-discrimination is incorporated in employment and federal laws. Hospital visitation and such matters including anti-discrimination in most work places are the same for gay couples as for straight.

There is a caveat to our seeming equal treatment for de facto relationships; we don't get to decide if we are in the de facto relationship or not, the government department for social benefits decides that. The reason is simple, the government pension/benefit is less for couples, than for two independent people not in a relationship. So if two people live together in Australia they could be judged as being in a de facto relationship and would therefore attract the lesser pension rate of payment for their benefit. Technically, that could mean that would apply to any two people living together, but each case is decided on its own circumstances. Be careful what you wish for!

Personal displays of affection (PDA) are a gray area, but more dangerous from reaction of our redneck thugs than from any law. Public sex is against the law as is paedophilia. Interestingly it is hard to imagine that the police in any Australian state would ignore a hostility against a person for being gay. Our many celebrations of LGBTQ life range from the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras extravaganza, to our LGBTQ Feast Festival in Adelaide, to Pride parades in some provincial cities.

We have the same religious reactionary groups that can be found in most tolerant and accepting societies, but we tend to ignore them or laugh at them as they deserve. You can walk into a public place in Australia and announce you are gay, with the worst reaction being a chorus of, "So bloody what?" I wouldn't recommend you do that in some places that are frequented by our less than tolerant thugees, but those cretins are subject to our anti-discrimination laws. Just don't go cruising where they do.

It is more of a concern that Australians do not have freedom of speech as in the U.S.A. but then again we do have respect for individual responsibility for one's utterances. We don't have a 'Bill of Rights' as such, and that means the separation of Religion and State is unclear, and dependent on common law and High Court rulings.

LGBTQ tourists are not likely to find themselves at risk because of their sexuality when visiting Australia. Unless, of course, their PDAs become rampant illustrated lectures of sexual practices in public places, but that applies to straight couples too. I feel that Tourism Australia would be surprised to find that the Spartacus travel index gives Australia such a low rating. As a society, Australian people, if not all our laws, are way more friendly than the Spartacus rating suggests.

As for the two guys in the Dominica situation, I can only repeat, cruising has always had its dangers.

[E.J.]

Such a good link EJ and so telling we are not only like 37th but that we are in the "yellow" section as well. It would be interesting to see a listing of US states like this

scroll down to page 4

Re the Spartacus rating for Australia: .......

See footnote number 14:

In Australia there is a current debate regarding national laws concerning gay marriage or civil partnerships. The outcome is uncertain.

I hardly consider Australia's rating to be low.....I mean your rated higher than Liechtenstein (and the US).

[DesDownunder]

Re footnote 14: There is a very concerted effort to get marriage law passed to include same sex couples. It is 'evolving' amongst our politicians. Marriage is not the cause of the low rating as much as is the HIV+ status. In day to day activity Australia is more likely a 6, but downgrade that to a '5' for rating purposes on a world scale.

A '3' is not representative of our overall acceptance of LGBTQ objectives, or our current anti-discrimination policies even allowing for the areas in which we need to see improvement.

I consider the Spartacus assessment for Australia as being on the low side to describe our present levels of acceptance and welcoming of LGBTQ people. As I stated above LGBTQ people in a de facto relationship have access to the same basic respect as a straight couple in a de facto relationship. This is effectively a civil union, albeit a de facto one, for the purposes of social recognition for welfare payments and benefits, without discrimination. And woe betide the employer who discriminates against staff for being LGBTQ.

Moves to make homosexuality compulsory, in Australia, are somewhat exaggerated by our conservative extremists.

[colinian]

Moves to make homosexuality compulsory, in Australia, are somewhat exaggerated by our conservative extremists.

I would certainly not be in favor or making homosexuality compulsory. I find that most (but not all) straight guys aren't worth looking at, while most (but not quite all) gay guys are not only worth looking at, they are worth drooling and panting over.

Colin

(with tongue firmly inserted in cheek)