Jump to content

To visit or not to visit Grand Cayman?


Recommended Posts

...If you prefer not to financially support places that are homophobic, then you should avoid the Bahamas and Jamaica and Grand Cayman.

 

D&J

 

While I completely agree on boycotting the homophobic, let's try to remember that the viewpoint of a government is not the viewpoint of all their citizens. We live in Atlanta, and I would hope no one would decide not to patronize my business because Georgia is a fiercely red state.

 

When it comes to Grand Cayman, some of my most accepting friends have lived / have a place there. When we were there in 2012, we were with the most gay people I've ever seen on a ship. Some in our party were so flaming that I thought they'd create steam at Stingray City! We had a shore excursion with a non-sponsored company. None of us had a single thought about any Cayman reputation of homophobia, because the proprietors & employees of both the excursion company and the restaurant we went to for lunch welcomed us in like family. We haven't encountered any issue on other visits, either.

 

In most places - and there are definite exceptions - you find what you're looking for. If you're looking for homophobia and negative comments, you're bound to find them even if you're in San Francisco for Pride. My partner (13 1/2 years) and I have traveled extensively without any issues. Granted, my cop father started training me to be a cop as soon as I could walk, and I've done executive protection for politicians, pro athletes, and Fortune 500 CEOs. Now I'm a travel agent with my finger on the pulse of travel news around the world, so I approach some of these scenarios with a different level of awareness & insight than the average bear (or otter, or ....).

 

The world is changing, and we move it forward by being who we are and living our lives confidently. Go forth and conquer! Just don't try to multiply on your balcony.

 

(Oh, and as for Africa, they're so far off the homophobia chart that I don't actively promote tours there.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grand Cayman is one of our stops in September, along with Montego Bay. We plan to make Grand Cayman a beach day. As others have said, we do not show PDA. Often times we pass as brothers. We have been to the Bahamas, Barbados, St. Lucia, etc. and have never experienced any problems. We had so much fun in Barbados that we have booked that Southern itinerary again! Save your PDA for your cabin and you shouldn't have any trouble in Grand Cayman. ;)

 

To quote Arthur Frommer's guidebook: "None of the islands in the Caribbean are completely gay-friendly, even more liberal destinations like Puerto Rico and St. Croix. But the government of the Cayman Islands has been particularly vocal and unapologetic in expressing its anti-gay attitudes."

 

Now, I personally went to Grand Cayman while shunning Jamaica, but now am reassessing that dividing line. You may, in fact, make an entirely different choice about where you choose to spend your tourist dollars, as is your right.

 

But one way or the other, I find the argument that it's OK to visit an anti-gay country as long as you play their game and stay in the the closet to be rather unpersuasive. (Particularly as the queers who actually live there do not have so easy an option.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most places - and there are definite exceptions - you find what you're looking for. If you're looking for homophobia and negative comments, you're bound to find them even if you're in San Francisco for Pride.

 

I'm sorry, but reductio your ad absurdum elsewhere. I happen to live in San Francisco, and yes, there are half a dozen religious maniacs who stand on Market Street on Saturday afternoon and make nasty homophobic comments. But I just walked home from the 11-day LGBT film festival, holding the hand of my husband, whom I married at City Hall, and no one gave us a second glance. Explain to me again, please, how that is in any way comparable to a country where there are no gay bars, where same-sex couples have no legal standing, where the government takes virulently anti-gay stances, and LGBT people have no civil rights protections?

 

Sure, no place is perfect, or even near-perfect. But "Why not go to the 1936 Berlin Olympics? There's anti-Semitism in New York City, too." is a weakish argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but reductio your ad absurdum elsewhere. I happen to live in San Francisco, and yes, there are half a dozen religious maniacs who stand on Market Street on Saturday afternoon and make nasty homophobic comments. But I just walked home from the 11-day LGBT film festival, holding the hand of my husband, whom I married at City Hall, and no one gave us a second glance. Explain to me again, please, how that is in any way comparable to a country where there are no gay bars, where same-sex couples have no legal standing, where the government takes virulently anti-gay stances, and LGBT people have no civil rights protections?

 

Sure, no place is perfect, or even near-perfect. But "Why not go to the 1936 Berlin Olympics? There's anti-Semitism in New York City, too." is a weakish argument.

 

To clarify, you want me to reduction my to absurdity elsewhere???

 

The fact is that you actually proved my point AND spun the discussion toward reductio ad absurdum, twisting my comment to fit your comparison of life in the Caymans to the treatment of Jews in 1936. San Francisco is one of the, if not THE, most accepting cities for the LGBTQ community. Pride is an gathering which welcomes all participants, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. I combined these two loving and accepting communities into a metaphor for the most homophile environment imaginable. Homophobia in San Francisco at Pride is like ice in the Sahara: It won't last long before being obliterated. My statement was: if you look for it, you can even find homophobia in San Francisco at Pride. You chose to rebuff my statement by saying, point blank, that there are homophobes in San Francisco. Uhm...thanks for backing me up with facts...I guess?

 

Do I think the hatred and fear spewed by the Cayman government is acceptable? Absolutely not. Under no circumstances would I choose a Grand Cayman resort as my week-long vacation destination. That being said, I'm going on a cruise in just over a week. As it happens, Grand Cayman is one of our ports of call. Royal Caribbean is not going to change their itinerary because of the ignorance of the Cayman government. In exchange for enjoying the ship I want and an itinerary I like, I have to go to the port in GC for 8 hours. Now I'm faced with 3 choices:

  1. Refuse to go to the destinations I DO want because a stop in GC is on the itinerary,
  2. Stay on the ship, in which case the GC government gets my tiny portion of the port fee - but nobody else gets any money, or
  3. Go ashore and patronize businesses bold enough to put up a rainbow flag (even if just for those 8 hours). In that political climate, they know that putting that flag up could bring serious consequences long after we're gone. If I feel they are genuinely accepting, I'll override my pennies that went to the port fee by putting dollars in the pockets of people who are trying to feed their family and pay the light bill. Knowing where that money came from, I'd like to think they will return the support - financially and physically - by joining the groundswell that will someday rise up and demand change.

In short, if my itinerary includes a place where change is needed, I want to help those who can make that change happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think out of all our cruises to the Caribbean, we've been there five or six times. We've stayed on the ship in Grand Cayman two or three times because tendering is a pain. I can remember going there three times and actually getting to the island. The first time DH was in a fog due to overdosing on Scopolamine--the seasickness patch. The second time we on a snorkeling excursion. The third time we tendered over later in the day--after the lines had died down--just to walk around a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In short, if my itinerary includes a place where change is needed, I want to help those who can make that change happen.

 

Sorry Shepp, I have to agree with PolarisKale here. If your rule is that you refuse to patronize any country that is officially anti-gay, you'd find yourself locked out of most caribbean, south american and asian cruises, and as has been pointed out, you'd probably have to relocate outside of the US considering its continuing refusal to recognize marriage and workplace rights for LGBT citizens.

 

The better strategy is to spend your tourist dollars as wisely and benignly as possible, realizing that while the world can be a very unfriendly place, that doesn't mean you can't still embrace it. You would be a very provincial traveler indeed if you excluded any location that didn't comport with your sense of justice and public policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Shepp, I have to agree with PolarisKale here. If your rule is that you refuse to patronize any country that is officially anti-gay, you'd find yourself locked out of most caribbean, south american and asian cruises, and as has been pointed out, you'd probably have to relocate outside of the US considering its continuing refusal to recognize marriage and workplace rights for LGBT citizens.

 

The better strategy is to spend your tourist dollars as wisely and benignly as possible, realizing that while the world can be a very unfriendly place, that doesn't mean you can't still embrace it. You would be a very provincial traveler indeed if you excluded any location that didn't comport with your sense of justice and public policy.

 

The law was passed last week by President Obama. We now get the same rights, even our partners Social Security. Also if you are married in one state and live in another that does not yet recognized same sex marriage that state now has to recognize that marriage on the Federal level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law was passed last week by President Obama. We now get the same rights, even our partners Social Security. Also if you are married in one state and live in another that does not yet recognized same sex marriage that state now has to recognize that marriage on the Federal level.

 

Sorry my friend, you are misinformed. ENDA has not been passed and Obama has not yet signed any executive order. Even if he did, it would apply to federal contractors ONLY. As for marriage rights, while DOMA has been overturned, and the circuits have been making progress, the Supreme Ct has not yet held a fundamental right to marriage for same sex couples exists. And a majority of states still have constitutional bans on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...As for marriage rights, while DOMA has been overturned, and the circuits have been making progress, the Supreme Ct has not yet held a fundamental right to marriage for same sex couples exists. And a majority of states still have constitutional bans on the books.

 

Sadly true.

 

We aren't where I'd like us to be. We aren't where we will be. But thank God we aren't where we used to be. Gone are the days when a ceremony could only be a "Civil Union." Still, I'll be glad when I don't have to fly to California to wed friends who live in Colorado, or research the marriage laws of each individual state so I'm sure the vows I say or the location we're in meets local requirements. I love seeing the beautiful places my friends choose for their ceremony, but knowing we have to go somewhere other than home to gain legal standing just reminds me that we're still second-class citizens.

 

In the words of the late, great Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." In the meantime, we keep doing what we can wherever we travel to help push that speck of the universe in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that you actually proved my point AND spun the discussion toward reductio ad absurdum, twisting my comment to fit your comparison of life in the Caymans to the treatment of Jews in 1936. San Francisco is one of the, if not THE, most accepting cities for the LGBTQ community. Pride is an gathering which welcomes all participants, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. I combined these two loving and accepting communities into a metaphor for the most homophile environment imaginable. Homophobia in San Francisco at Pride is like ice in the Sahara: It won't last long before being obliterated. My statement was: if you look for it, you can even find homophobia in San Francisco at Pride. You chose to rebuff my statement by saying, point blank, that there are homophobes in San Francisco. Uhm...thanks for backing me up with facts...I guess?

 

Well, yeah, my personal reductio was kinda feckless, I guess. And a little knowing. Maybe I should have mentioned the upcoming Olympics in Qatar instead?

 

But why bring up intolerance in San Francisco, where it is so firmly opposed by both the populace and the body politic, in a discussion of a place where widespread homophobia is fully endorsed by the government? (And by the way, I had a fabulous time at the Parade today, where I marched with the ACLU. I'm sure there were a few straight yahoos...didn't see a one.)

 

Thing is, I'm really not a provincial travel purist. I've actually visited some pretty horrific countries, civil-liberty-wise. Syria, for example, and Burma. And yes, I tried to minimize my complicity (spending with locals in Burma, e.g, rather than with government-run businesses).

 

Thing is, I did it with full knowledge of a degree of moral ambiguity on my part, and without indulging in the notion that my merely going there would change anything. (Back when I went to Burma, there was disagreement among Burmese activists, some arguing for complete boycott, others for person-to-person contact from abroad. And, to my self-disappointment, once I got home I didn't do much to support Burmese liberation.)

 

Since we're quoting King, we might note that he supported both blacks and whites boycotting the Montgomery buses. Boycotting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But why bring up intolerance in San Francisco, where it is so firmly opposed by both the populace and the body politic, in a discussion of a place where widespread homophobia is fully endorsed by the government?

 

Shepp, I'm sure you and I would get along swimmingly if we met in a bar during a cruise. Your reply in the "Proposing?" thread about the romantic nature of moonlight on the Promenade aft made me sigh, agreeing that you had nailed the most romantic spot on the ship. This misunderstanding is tiny in the scope of things upon which we agree & stand shoulder-to-shoulder against.

 

We all filter what we read & hear through our life experiences. With my background in personal protection and law enforcement, I read the question in relation to whether it was safe to go ashore, and my initial reply was more focused on not allowing any unfounded fear to prevent one from going where they desired. There are enough justified concerns for safety - especially if you engage in overt PDA or look like you just left a 70's dance party on your way to star in a drag show. We can't exacerbate these fears with a conflation of facts & urban legends or so many one-off incidents that we incapacitate ourselves. If one does desire to go ashore and have a good time, it can often be done safely as long as one adheres to basic principles of awareness and "safety in numbers." The point I was trying to make is that, if you look hard enough, you can even find red in a sea of green, water in the dry desert, peace amidst conflict, or hair on Howie Mandel's head. To illustrate the expanse "green" in which it would be very difficult (but not impossible) to find a speck of "red" homophobia, I chose what I felt was the greenest of greens: San Francisco at Pride. It was the closest example of a place completely devoid of homophobia I could conceive.

 

In reading my comment, I believe I can safely assume that your history of taking a stand for justice, extinguishing homophobia wherever you find it and a strong sense of civic pride (no pun intended) - which is well-deserved - caused you to bristle at the very thought of putting the name of your great city in the same sentence as 'homophobia.' And on the spirit of that belief, you and I agree. Pairing them together was in the context of one extreme (homophobia) against the other (San Francisco). It certainly wasn't meant to put SFO even in the same realm as the Caymans or any other place where we would feel less than welcome. Quite the contrary. Had I been looking for a place where one would be hard pressed to find an Eskimo, I would have used Death Valley, or for finding an acrophobe, the top of the Empire State Building.

 

Please know that using SFO as the antithesis of homophobia was the highest compliment possible. I was not, in any way, attempting to draw a parallel between the graciousness of SFO and the vitriolic hatred coming from many Caribbean destinations. Possibly a "perpendicular," but certainly not a parallel. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Olympics in Qatar? :confused: They failed in bids for 2016 and 2020.

 

Maybe you are thinking of the 2022 World Cup?

 

Yeah, I was hurried and did a mash-up of the World Cup and the Sochi Olympics. My bad.

 

And speaking of Sochi...

 

Similar discussions surrounded going to Russia, including port stops in St. Petersburg. And while I can't believe that cruisers boycotting the Hermitage would discomfort Putin, neither do I put much faith the constructive-engagement argument that if we go and act like good little gays with discreet rainbow pins, we'll change the hearts and minds of the Russian Orthodox yahoos. Billie Jean King went. Sir Elton John went. Have things improved? Um, no.

 

Maybe Madonna doesn't have the power to change the world, after all.

 

Bottom line: seems to me that whether we cruise to a place or not is less important to the fate of the locals than whether we send a few bucks to IGLHRC and Amnesty International.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please know that using SFO as the antithesis of homophobia was the highest compliment possible. I was not, in any way, attempting to draw a parallel between the graciousness of SFO and the vitriolic hatred coming from many Caribbean destinations. Possibly a "perpendicular," but certainly not a parallel. ;)

 

 

Cool. Let's indeed go for a drink on some cruise sometime.

 

That is, if I can afford one after the wave of mega-gentrification my "great city" is going through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
That is something I can agree on. There is nothing of much interest anywhere on the island. And if there is more than one ship visiting that day, not enough room on the streets to walk comfortably.

 

Oh well .. if nothing else my husband and I can take a walk along the beach and make a quick circle thru town, then back to the ship to eat and drink. Hopefully we'll find something interesting to do there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...