Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society more than the church community? Part 2
By Dr Lazarus Castang:
Continuing from part 1, where the question was left unanswered, I propose, from numerous perspectives, an answer to the question: Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?
“Should” brings the question of morality into play, while “can” puts the question of ability on the screen. Homosexuals can influence Caribbean public policy through political pressures and funding agencies. But it may still be an uphill battle to overthrow the will of the numerical majority to legislate what homosexuals do as legitimate, normal or normative.
The question of the tyranny of the majority over the minority misses the important distinction between parallel rights and conflicting rights. Where there is a conflict of rights in society, one right will be made fundamental and the other less than fundamental. In the Caribbean, there is a right to conscience (religious liberty), but there is no right to homosex. If the distinction between parallel rights and conflicting rights is not kept in mind, then it can be indiscriminately argued that Caribbean legislations and religious norms create tyranny of the majority over a minority with crimes of drug addiction, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality, and bestiality.
On the question of a sexual orientation rule, homosexuals may be born with tendencies to homosex, and early in life feel attracted to the same sex. It is an injustice of tremendous proportion to discriminate or legislate against homosexual orientation over which homosexuals have no choice. Moreover, how will evidence of orientation be reliably culled where there is no external evidence of homosexual practice? Therefore, a clear distinction must be maintained between homosexual orientation and the behavioural expression of it. In like manner, a clear distinction must be maintained between pedophilic orientation and the behavioural expression of it.
Legal and moral consistency requires parity of treatment for homosexual and pedosexual behaviour. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church. Analogies between homosexual behaviour and slavery or women issues are not the best analogies. Sexual analogies like incest, pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, adultery, polygamy, polyamory, and male polysexuality are the best analogies.
On the question of morality rule, the argument that a “right” to sexual orientation is an automatic right to any sexual behaviour on a sexual continuum is fallacious. Many men have a polysexual orientation, so is it an automatic right for them to sleep with as many consensual adult sex partners in order to be true to their polysexual orientation/identity? Married women will not agree to this, nor will loving, committed gay partners agree to it.
What is considered “normal” is not automatically moral and there is no natural right to homosexual behaviour to make it a fundamental right. Those who call homosexual behaviour a universal human right have not made the case for the rightness, or universality, or humanity of homosex. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.
Morality should not be disregarded even if it is alleged or made to stand in the way of economic growth. In fact, widespread economic growth itself presupposes a reduction or stifling of political and moral corruption in society.
On the question of harmful rule, if homosexual behaviour is a victimless crime, then incest and bestiality are victimless crimes that should be decriminalised, legalised and protected. Furthermore, since there is no scientific research showing that pedophilia causes measurable harm to all children in all cases, then, pedophilia should be legislated against on a case by case basis. Harmful rule and victimless crime have been used to give a pass to prostitution. Interestingly, homosexual behaviour is against the natural use of women and against the perpetuity of the human race. Therefore, it is sexist and against our humanity. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.
On the question of freedom, social inclusion, tolerance, equality and acceptance rules, these are so-called morally neutral issues that attempt to evade any talk of the morality of homosexual behaviour. We cannot have a society that declares a sexual matter a right by sheer ideological fiat. Nor can we have a society that physically abuses and professionally, or medically, or socially discriminates against homosexual persons because they come out or covertly engage in private, consensual adult homosex.
Above all, we cannot have a society that is morally all-embracing from incest to prostitution to homosexuality to pedophilia to bestiality. How far do we extend the principle of right to sex if sexual satisfaction is a right? A moral society must draw the line. Homosexuals draw the line to include homosex as personally acceptable. The church draws the line to exclude homosex as morally unacceptable but to tolerate homosex, like adultery, fornication, male polysexuality as social immoralities beckoning sincere repentance of heart and reformation of behaviour.
The Caribbean church will not support the legal protection of homosex that criminalises Christianity’s moral stance against homosex. Homosexuality is not a moral equivalent of heterosexuality. The opposite of both homosexuality and heterosexuality is moral purity. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.
On the question of privacy, consensuality, male-adult, ownership-of-one’s-body, and right-to-choose rule, it works on the individual level with a purely private matter, but is inadequate a rule on the public level. Gay lobby, gay parades, the homosexual movement/community, promotion of gay lifestyle as a normal variant of human sexuality and gays coming out are public, not private matters.
This rule gives free reign to any adult sexual behaviour that crosses gender, species, or blood-relatedness boundaries. It accommodates abortion, prostitution, incest, male polysexual behaviours, bestiality, polygamy, and polyamory. Therefore, such rule is virtually worthless being exclusive only of children and cognitively disabled individuals, but accepting of all other sexual behaviours, whether harmful or not. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.
October 02, 2014
- Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church? Part-1