Homosexuality in Belize, and Why I’m a Criminal

As I mentioned in my last post about Minister Louis Farrakhan, during his recent visit to Belize he did tone down his conservative (or as I see it, racist and homophobic) rhetoric.  But one thing he did have a none-too-subtle attack on was religion’s favourite scapegoat, homosexuality.  He described governments’ and people’s acceptance of same-sex relationships as “sanctioning something that God don’t sanction”, and berated Belize for bowing to foreign pressure and becoming “a whore to American aid”!  And he echoed many religious leaders around the world (including those in Belize) when he said that ordinary people should be afraid of the LGBT “agenda”.  Another ‘conspiracy’ to keep the paranoid minister awake at night…

Of course, Farrakhan and his religious kin are suspicious of the LGBT movement, for the simple reason that they do consider gay people to be sinners (they don’t believe that nonsense about “God loving the sinner but not the sin” any more than anyone else does), and they do think that homosexuals should be punished (or should be threatened with punishment at the very least).  And in Belize they have the law (or a common interpretation of the law) on their side – Section 53 of the Belize Criminal Code states that any person who has “carnal knowledge” with any other person that is “against the order of nature” can be imprisoned for ten years.

“Carnal knowledge that is against the order of nature” – no matter how many times I read it, I still don’t know exactly what it covers, I only have my own interpretation of ‘nature’ to base my decision on (I get the ‘carnal knowledge’ bit, though).  But others might have a different definition of ‘nature’, and who’s to say that their idea of what’s ‘natural’ isn’t the correct one?  And that’s part of the problem – the wording of the law is so vague that it allows for multiple interpretations of it to be held simultaneously, all of which are equally valid (or equally invalid).  And you don’t have to be Perry Mason to know that the rule of law in a country can only ever fully work so long as its citizens know exactly what is (and isn’t) legal (In Europe, there’s the well-established principle of legal certainty, where the law has to be specific enough to allow those subject to it to regulate their own conduct – so it’s part of the law that the law shouldn’t be vague.  I hope that’s not too vague for you all).

So perhaps the first thing that should be done is to clear up this terrible ambiguity and clearly define what is and isn’t legal, and not leave it up to individuals to interpret the law in their own way, potentially breaking it (or incorrectly accusing other people of breaking it) in the process (and change ‘carnal knowledge’ as well, we’re not living in biblical times!).  Because so far, the people who’ve been shouting the loudest about what’s ‘natural’ are (surprise surprise) the church leaders and other religious people, the people with the strongest views on morality, the ones who believe that their interpretation of their holy book is the right one, and that their definition of what’s ‘normal’ should dictate what everyone else should do, and what laws should be applied to everyone else.  And they’ve been using their position of influence and power in Belize to conduct a campaign of such ignorance, misinformation, and hatred that it catches the breath.

Nor do you need to be Perry Mason to know that when you apply any law selectively it becomes inconsistent with the point of having a law in the first place.  That’s why the legal action initiated by UNIBAM (United Belize Advocacy Movement), challenging the constitutionality of Section 53, is so important.  It’s been suggested to the UNIBAM members that they could’ve just carried on as before (and after their leader was hit in the face with a bottle by a stranger on the street, maybe that thought crossed his mind!).  And it is true that UNIBAM’s high profile over the last few years has had the unfortunate side effect of bringing the latent homophobic sentiments of some people into the open.

But that’s not really the point – what we know about the world changes with time, and what’s considered acceptable and moral changes with time too; and laws are designed to be created, discarded, and amended in order to reflect those changes (That’s why we don’t have slavery any more, and why we don’t burn people for saying that the Earth goes round the Sun.  And that’s why Belize is now one of only ten countries in the Americas, and the only Central American country, who still have this law).  So Belizeans (like everyone else) would’ve come to this point eventually.  At the very least the creation of UNIBAM and its forthcoming court case forces people to examine their convictions and their biases.  And to remind everyone of just how shaky the foundations of some people’s beliefs are, and how ridiculous those people can be when their beliefs are challenged (Belize Action, the church-organised counter-organisation to UNIBAM, has described the decriminalisation of homosexuality as “an orchestrated plan of demonic darkness to dethrone God and open a gateway to destruction”!).  Seriously.  Someone actually said that.

Over the past two years that I’ve lived here, I’ve heard many people express their intolerance for homosexuality, and then defend that intolerance with the wildest of claims, and all whilst simultaneously expressing concern for the rest of Belize’s innocent population (to get an idea of their paranoid hysteria, imagine Helen Lovejoy from The Simpsons, shrieking her catchphrase of “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!”).  Some of these anti-gay crusaders are concerned that gays and lesbians won’t do their part to keep Belize’s population growing – the Mayor of Belmopan (the capital city) went so far as to suggest that Belizeans would become extinct if the country allowed gays to live freely here!  Others are more explicit in their opposition – the spokesman for the Council of Churches claimed that homosexuality and its popular bedfellow abortion are part of an “unacceptable” lifestyle, and one that’s being pushed on Belizeans by foreign countries trying to exert their power (that’s America and Britain, and all their baby-killing queers, in case you didn’t know!).  Then there are those who think that all this weirdness is just a lifestyle choice – which, as most (if not all) gay people will attest to, isn’t true.  And finally there are those who are downright vicious in their hatred – in the country’s most-read newspaper, The Amandala, there are regular columns by the editor and his readers, claiming that homosexuals are naturally sexual predators who’ll nail anything that moves if they’re given half a chance, and latent child molesters for whom paedophilia is a natural recourse, as they’ll turn to younger partners once their mates’ bodies become “worn out” (I wished I’d kept the article to quote it verbatim, I’ve never read a more detailed comparison of human orifices in a newspaper!).

The Belizean media (who traditionally fill most of their pages and airtime with sensationalised accounts of the latest crimes, many of which are shocking enough without the overblown reporting) are full of this garbage, particularly the aforementioned Amandala, which began as a newspaper associated with the struggles of black Belizeans in the 1960s (ironically, and sadly, being part of a group that’s the victim of discrimination doesn’t stop people from enthusiastically practicing it towards another group).

The people who write this hate-speech often say that Section 53 (or at least the anti-gay interpretation of it) is never used to actually punish anyone for being gay (and it’s true that there’s never been a prosecution of any gay person, or any person committing homosexual acts, under this law).  So why are they so insistent on keeping it?  I think it’s to act as a reminder to everyone that (at least as far as they’re concerned) homosexuality is abnormal and wrong.  In a similar way to how, in medieval times, a severed head would be publicly displayed to serve as a warning to anyone considering criminality.  Of course the religious conservatives don’t want to punish people for their lifestyle choices (after all, they have their God to do the punishing!) – they just want those people to feel intimidated, and to be constantly reminded that they’re going to hell for their wickedness.

So what do the religious people of Belize consider to be ‘natural’?  Well, from a quick glance at The Bible (when it’s not defending slavery, condoning murder, oppressing women, advocating child abuse, encouraging genocide, and making demented pronouncements that it contradicts several chapters later), it’s clear that God intends men and women to be together for the purpose of procreation.  And woe betide anyone who tries to circumvent that plan – remember poor Onan and the result of his seed-spilling shenanigans?

But that produces another problem – if it’s ‘natural’ for a man and a women to be together to produce children, then I’m unnatural, I’m a sinner along with all the gays.  And if it’s a crime to go against ‘nature’, then it’s not just the homos who are breaking the law – I’m a criminal too.

Why?  Because I’m a heterosexual man and I’m childless.  I’ve had sex with women many times, yet I’ve never once had it for the purpose of creating life.  I’ve never left it up to God to decide if His plan is for me to have a baby or not – quite the opposite, I’ve been deliberate in avoiding pregnancy my whole sexually active life.  Oh the blasphemy!  I’ve been going against God’s will every time I’ve been with a woman.  I’ve been thumbing my nose at the supreme being of the universe every time I’ve got jiggy with a lady.

And that’s just sex with a partner.  If Onan was struck down by God for spilling his seed a few times, imagine what holy retribution the Lord has planned for a man who’s been enthusiastically blowing his baby gravy all over the place since he was a teenager?  Think of the genocide I’ve committed over the years, with millions of potential lives lost in the course of every profane monkey spank.

Clearly I conduct my sex life against the order of nature, contrary to the social norms of the country, in flagrant breach of the law of the land, and against the intentions of God.  But none of the religious conservatives have ever said (or even implied) that a person like me should be imprisoned for ten years.  None of them have reprimanded me for my reluctance to breed, or questioned my lifestyle choices, or compared me to a paedophile.  They seem content to allow me to make my own choices of who to be intimate with and how.  But only because I happen to do it with someone of the opposite sex.  Religious people cherry-pick their holy books and discard the parts that seem strange or immoral to them – that’s why no one makes a big deal today about picking up grapes, wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics, allowing dwarfs into church, and all the other bizarre things that are banned in The Bible.  But they’re still unnaturally obsessed with what other people do with their junk.

Another possible reason why the Christian (mainly Catholic) Church in Belize is so against changing the law is because it’s one of the most powerful forces in the country – and much of its power derives from the fact that it funds (and therefore controls) the country’s education system.  And as all parents desire the best education for their children, they’re careful to keep on the good side of the clergy.  Even when they’re told that their kids are to have mandatory religious instruction, and are required to attend a religious service every week, or they can’t graduate from high school!

Without going into a critique of religion (that would take too long, and I only have 3GB of free space with this blog), that’s another situation that should be changed as soon as possible (and everywhere, not just Belize) – school should be about learning facts and gaining knowledge (and equally importantly, learning how to think – understanding the importance of scepticism, questioning, and examining evidence).  And they’re the opposite qualities of the blind faith and incuriosity that all religion is based on, and the intolerance that religious leaders have for anyone who questions that faith.  Reason and religion have never been BFFs (ever since two nudists took dietary advice from a talking snake), and maybe if the church wasn’t so heavily involved in such an important aspect of Belizean life, perhaps it wouldn’t feel the need to publicly moralise on everything (and perhaps it wouldn’t be given the authority to do its pontificating); and as a result the dialogue might be slightly more reasonable and slightly less hysterical?  And what with them denouncing condoms, opposing stem cell research, and covering-up child abuse, morality isn’t exactly the Catholic Church’s strong point…

Nor does the Belizean church seem to know that the rest of its religion has finally wised up and accepted that discrimination of all kinds is wrong – even the last Pope (mini-Führer Joseph of the Hitler Youth) issued a statement opposing it.  And if The Pope is against anti-discrimination, that must be because God’s against it (good old papal infallibility eh?).  So, far from contradicting God and Christianity, UNIBAM’s case is actually sanctioned by the Vatican itself, and it’s the Belizean church that’s going against what The Man Upstairs wants.

So let’s hope that UNIBAM wins next month – not so that they can turn the country gay and paint the flag pink, but simply so that they can carry on doing what they were doing before, but without being criminals.  Let’s hope that Belizeans appreciate the chance to examine an issue with intelligent, public debate (something that the citizens of some countries aren’t allowed to do).  Let’s hope that Belizeans who’ve been the subject of discrimination in the past realise how important it is to not discriminate against other Belizeans in the present.  Let’s hope that people realize that, for the good of everyone, universal human rights law must always prevail over the archaic commands of religion.  And let’s hope that, after all this, Belizeans can concentrate on the really important issues facing the country.

18 thoughts on “Homosexuality in Belize, and Why I’m a Criminal

    • Thanks Ruth! That web page included the very article that I was trying to reference, when Russell Vellos graphically described why he thinks homosexual men are latent child molesters, by comparing male and female orifices! He really is a disgustingly vile man, and his Amandala columns represent a true low-point in journalism, especially when you consider that the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by heterosexual men against young women, and there isn’t even a law against male rape. When he’s not railing against crime by stating that thieves should be shot on sight, he’s bemoaning the state of the country, and then printing pictures of suicide victims.

      It’s said that the people who prohibit and punish (things like adultery and homosexuality) do so out of a repressed desire to participate in those very things – if that’s true, then Vellos (and Paul Rodriguez, and others) must be some of the most repressed gays in the world! Maybe they’re, as the phrase goes, so far in the closet that they’re in Narnia!

      Like

    • Hi Ginny! Go UNIBAM indeed, I look forward to the court case being successful, and then the heavens opening as The Rapture occurs and all us immoral sinners are cast into the flames. Along with everyone that’s ever eaten shrimp or pork, or has a tattoo, or trims their beard, or wears gold jewellery. That probably wouldn’t leave too many people in the country…

      Apart from that, I’m good thanks, I hope you’re doing well too x.

      Like

  1. As for ‘against the order of nature’, haven’t they heard about the gay penguins? Even though in the end one of them turned out to be bi, or having been ‘making do’. Still, it illustrates the ‘flexibility’ of natural sexual urges.

    I’m listening to the life story of Mary Robinson, Ireland’s first female president – that’s the kind of fun gal I am! She championed law reform for family planning and divorce (once a ban on divorce was in the country’s constitution) in her early years, and because she was in a position to do something about it, the Catholic Church by way of the Bishop insisted that all churches read out a letter in which it said that to do these things would bring down a curse upon the whole country. Although she wasn’t specifically named, it was obvious who they were talking about. That’s one step up from witchdoctery, at least no chicken was sacrificed (that we know about…). So these tactics by religious people to try and scare reformers and the wider population are very tired old tricks. She was upset by it (and by the huge volumes of hate mail) but carried on regardless, later turning to homosexual law reform. Quite an amazing woman – I am sure Ireland was even more conservative and religious then than Belize is now.

    And before we get on our high horse too much in the more ‘developed’ world, we should remember our anti-homophobia is a relatively recent thing – certainly when I was a child, in Northern Ireland, being gay was not acceptable at all. During the consultation on civil partnerships only a few years ago, in NI the results of the consultation were about 75% against, but the government proceeded to change the law anyway. And that’s after all our years ‘developing’ and talking about human rights. So in Belize, where the focus on human rights is relatively new, it shouldn’t be a surprise that reform isn’t that popular. Human rights asks us to protect the fundamental rights of minorities, and those minorities often are not the popular groups in society.

    Enough wittering! Great article!

    Like

    • The gay penguins? I hadn’t heard of those particular animals, so I had to look them up on the Internet – are you referring to the ones in Madrid Zoo (who apparently aren’t gay, they’re just very good friends!) or the ones in the zoo in China, who were given the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Steve’?! And of course, that’s just penguins – there are countless examples of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, from the genital rubbing of bottlenose dolphins to giraffe ‘necking’ to the full-on, anything goes, sex-fest of the bonobos! According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals), homosexuality in animals was cited in the US Supreme Court’s decision in ‘Lawrence v. Texas’ which struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states.

      I totally agree about the tactics religious people use to stop laws from being reformed – you’d think that, if they were right, the world would’ve ended many times by now. Are they against change because they’re absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their argument (in which case, maybe they should take a look around at all the other countries that have changed in the way they don’t like, and see how nothing bad has happened in those places); or are they against change because of the fact that they will be proved wrong again and their beliefs will take another hammering?

      And excellent last point, you’re absolutely right – these kinds of things aren’t so much a ‘gay rights’ issue, or a ‘women’s rights’ issue, they’re human rights issues. And they’re not just ‘developing world’ problems, or ‘developed world’ problems, they’re human problems.

      Thanks for the comments!

      Like

    • Thanks for the info Lisa. The fact there still seems to be confusion over what is and isn’t covered by Section 53 seems (to me) to be a very good reason in itself to take a look at that law. Thanks for the comment!

      Like

  2. I support the fact that UNIBAM is challenging section 53 of the Criminal Code, the fact that they are allowed to do so assures us that democracy is still alive in Belize. I am for Human Rights for the most part; particularly i am for equality and the right to privacy and the protection of the law. I also believe in God. I find it really alarming that in UNIBAM’s effort to rightfully challenge the Criminal Code, their supporters seem to believe that they are gaining points for condemning the Bible, condemning the churches, condemning Christians and most importantly condemning GOD. The UNIMBAM challenge is not about trying to bring to disrepute the word of God and the followers of GOD. If it is that the supporters want to be respected then they must respect people’s religious belief. Stick to your cause and fight ur battle with clean conscience so at the end of all this, however the court may rule, u kno that you fought a good fight.

    Like

    • Hi KKK, thank you for your comment.

      I totally agree with you, it’s a fundamental part of living in a democracy that people can challenge the laws, and that those laws can be amended as a result.

      I wasn’t aware that any of UNIBAM’s supporters feel that they’re gaining points by condemning the Bible and God – perhaps some of them are, but every time I’ve seen them on TV or read their views in the newspapers and online, they seem to be more focused on what they’re for rather than what they’re against – which, as you said so well yourself, is human rights, equality, and the protection of the law.

      And if you were referring to me, you’re partly right – although I’m not trying to gain points by condemning the Bible, and I’m not condemning God (for the simple reason that I don’t think He exists [I’m an atheist, so me condemning God because I don’t like His teachings or His followers would be absurd, it would be like you condemning Santa Claus because you didn’t get a nice Christmas present – and that’s not intended as a condescending joke, I mean that in all seriousness]). And I’m not condemning Christians (or any religious people) for simply having faith. But (and here’s where you may be right), I do condemn anyone who uses their religion to justify their own intolerance and hatred, or hides their own intolerance and hatred behind their religion’s teachings. No thoughtful, ethical person who’s read The Bible in its entirety can ever be convinced that it’s a source of morality (quite the contrary – it’s a litany of slaughter, brutality, and cruelty) – so anyone who claims that it should be the foundation of our collective morality is on very shaky ground to begin with.

      You say that if UNIBAM’s supporters want to be respected they should respect other people’s beliefs. You’re absolutely right. But it’s not enough to simply have an opinion and then expect (or demand) that it’s respected – the opinion itself has to be something worthy of respect. If someone is going to publicly state opinions that are nothing more than bigotry and hatred (as many anti-UNIBAM advocates have), then they do not deserve respect, no matter how heartfelt those opinions may be. If I publicly stated that I didn’t believe in rights for women, or black people, and I had my religion to justify those opinions, would you automatically respect my beliefs, simply because I had them? And that’s why the UNIBAM case is so important – because it attempts to remove people’s beliefs and opinions from the equation, in order to leave simply the law, applied to everyone, regardless of our differences.

      Like

  3. Lisa, I find it hard to believe that an intelligent mind can’t figure out what S.53 covers!! Um… do a search on Ch 5 & Ch 7 news, search the word “unnatural” and see what comes up. Add to your search “sodomy” and “sodomized” and dig a little deeper. There you will find exactly what it covers, and you will find the most lewd and destructive behaviour, and please take note of the ages of these victims. Age 9, 11, even younger. And you for one want to change that law in the name of human dignity? Shame on you and UNIBAM and all of you!

    Like

    • Hi Stand Up. I know you directed your comments mainly at Lisa, but I’m going to jump in and provide some answers of my own.

      You say you can’t believe that an intelligent person doesn’t know what Section 53 covers. Well, I think the very existence of the debate, and the UNIBAM case (and its opposition) proves conclusively that many people don’t know for sure what Section 53 covers – they have only (as I stated in the post) their own interpretation of what it covers. Simply Googling a word to see how often it appears in the news doesn’t show what the definition of that word is – we need a better way of defining terms than holding a popularity contest for them. So at the very least the court case should have the effect of clearly defining the law, which is itself an essential thing in any country.

      Lisa stated that all crimes involving sodomy are illegal under Section 53, and you’re clearly saying that you think she’s wrong, so what exactly do you think it criminalises? The fact that this disagreement exists (in just the context of this blog post) proves my point above.

      You also mention the ages of some of the people involved – if it’s a case of child abuse, that’s covered by other laws, Sections 45 and 47. So revising Section 53 won’t expose children to an increased risk of sex crimes, nor will it enable the perpetrators of such crimes.

      The likes of Scott Stirm, Louis Wade, etc. (and perhaps you too), who don’t want Section 53 changed, say that they’re opposed to the change because it will then decriminalise the sexual abuse of boys. But they’re missing the point. The only reason that Section 53 could ever be used to prosecute someone who abuses a boy is because Section 47 is incomplete (it makes it a crime to have sex with a girl under 16). Two incomplete laws don’t together make one complete one; nor does it make sense to use the wrong laws for the wrong crimes.

      By amending Section 47 to make it illegal to have sex with anyone under 16, you’ve covered child abuse. You’ve clarified an incomplete law and addressed a woeful gender inequality that should’ve been addressed years ago. And then, there’s no need for Section 53 – you no longer need to criminalize homosexuality simply to keep sex crimes against children illegal.

      If Belize Action (and people like yourself) really want to protect our children, why are you all not calling for the amendment of Section 47? Why is your position that there should be no changes to the law? Do you really care about the children, or do you just want to punish the gays? If you really want to protect Belize’s youth, and you value the rights of yourself and your Belizean brothers and sisters, you should be calling for changes in the law just like UNIBAM are, to make the laws fair for everyone – young or old, male or female, straight or gay. Shame on you for not doing that.

      Like

  4. Can I humbly request that you use a more accurate TV representative of the legal profession? That is, one that accurately reflects what goes on in the legal profession, unlike, say Perry Mason, such as, well in fact possible solely, Kavanagh QC?

    Otherwise, good points! Although, as always with me on the religious points you’re really preaching to the converted. The issue is it seems presumably political more than legal. As you say, no one’s been prosecuted, but at the same time non-one is clear on the law as it stands. Unfortunately, as is the case in lots of areas of International Law (e.g. Art 42 of the UN Charter, and the legal definition in that context of ‘Acts of Aggression’ or ‘Reprisals’, for which there are none), these areas then get utilised, or often at best muddied by their use and/or abuse by those in the political circle. That’s not to insult politicians, half of those in the UK parliament (and indeed the Belizean) were/are former/current members of the bar (coincidentally in both cases the Bar of England and Wales). But at the same time, they’re not lawyers, professional, academic or otherwise.

    Certainly this is the case in Belize, where Dean Barrow (not unlike David Cameron, except, ironically on this one issue, where DC has used the introduction of gay marriage to his advantage to, its argued, distract the public from the countries economic woes) is, it seems concerned about his political position, to the extent that he doesn’t really want to poke the bear. Consequently, it serves him nicely to have this ambiguity, as it means that he can appease both traditionalist’s and progressives alike.

    It seems to me, then, that when/if the supreme court makes a ruling (this is all still about the SC ruling right?) in UNIBAM’s favour, then this is going to be the first of many hurdles for them. The traditionalists, the church and the anti-homosexual elements of the media are going to insist that it be overturned, the progressives, potentially may insist that the law go further and provide for an express right to marry and adopt children.

    Well anyway… that’s what I think. Finally, John, it’s nothing new to me that you’re a criminal…

    Like

    • Our Man In Belize – lovely to hear from you! I did consider other TV lawyers, but I never thought of Kavanagh QC – the only other one that crossed my mind was Ally McBeal, and I don’t think she rates very highly as an accurate depiction of your noble profession, what with her dizzy demeanour, relationship problems, short skirts, and dancing babies…

      It seems there are many loosely-defined laws around! In the case of Belize’s Section 53, I think the best way would be to amend Section 47 (making it illegal to have sex with anyone under 16), thereby satisfying the people opposing the Section 53 change on legal grounds (and more importantly, tightening up the law). And then Section 53’s anti-gay interpretation becomes pointless, and that law can be used solely for bestiality, and not used to criminalize homosexuality. Although I’m not sure if any of those actions, no matter how legally sound they are, would ever appease the religious conservatives…

      And you’re absolutely right about politicians being concerned about how their public statements may affect their position – sadly, their desire to not offend anyone (in order to keep their potential voter base as big as possible) means that frustratingly, they often don’t come down on one side of the fence or another. I’m not aware of Dean Barrow’s opinions on the UNIBAM case (perhaps he’s been diplomatically quiet, or perhaps I just haven’t been paying enough attention!). But at one of the Belize Action rallies that I saw, several PUP and UDP politicians attended and spoke, and basically played to the crowd by trumpeting their religious virtues and family values (even though in private they’re probably stealing, lying, and fornicating along with the rest of the country’s politicians!). But maybe they have an easier time here than in somewhere like the UK, because here there’s less progressives to upset and more traditionalists to appease?

      And you’re right again about the repercussions of the Supreme Court ruling – I can imagine the shrieking hysteria that’ll come from some quarters if the Court rules that Section 53 is unconstitutional. Followed by blaming that ruling whenever anything bad happens to the country in the future – Devastating hurricane? That’ll be because you let the gays do whatever they want, and now God’s angry! Things like this take a long time to change, because it’s more about people’s attitudes than the law (and it’s much harder to change the former than the latter). Many people have strong beliefs, have had them for life, and probably won’t change them no matter what evidence is presented to them, or what counter-argument is given. But on the plus side, they will all die one day ;-). New generations come along, and slowly but surely, things change. Let’s just hope people don’t end up turning into sleazy criminals like me!

      Like

Leave A Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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