Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church? Part-2

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?

On the question of majority rule, for the maintenance of social order there must be some sort of political, or military, or numerical majority. Numerically, there are far more professed Christians than homosexuals in the Caribbean society. Heterosexuals are a sexual majority and LGBTs are a sexual minority. A vote for the repeal or retention of Caribbean sodomy laws may result in its retention because of social, cultural and religious norms that do not favour men having sex with men (MSM). So, purely on the basis of a numerical majority rule as to whether homosexuals should influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church, the verdict is on the side of 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

Caribbeannewsnow

- Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?  Part-1 

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church Part-1

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society more than the church community? Part 1

By Dr Lazarus Castang:


Some commentaries on Caribbean News Now have consistently engaged in a common logical leap from universal human rights to men having sex with men. Homosex is often more implicitly than explicitly subsumed under the canopy of universal human rights. The need for sex or sexual satisfaction is universal, human, and a natural right. So, if this is the case, then no government, society, religion, culture, law, or morality should stigmatise or discriminate against adult males having private, consensual sex if it does not harm anyone. So the argument goes, but is the case really as simple and straightforward as this?

Caribbean society includes the homosexual community as well as the church community. From an objective, noncommittal perspective, for homosexuals to influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church or vice-versa constitutes an obvious bias in either direction. To try to divide and conquer by insisting that the church have sex however they want, and homosexuals have sex however they please, solves the problem on the individual level, but not on the collective/societal level.

Some active homosexuals want to be welcomed and affirmed in and by the church, and be celebrated when they come out in society. Some want to be married and hold position in church. Furthermore, they oppose any moral or legal discrimination against their homosexual behaviour by society or the church. In some countries they have or seek laws that criminalise public and Christian moral opposition to homosex, while they decriminalise homosex. They want homosexual behaviour to be upheld in school curriculum as a normal variant of human sexuality and insist on legislation to protect their right to homosex that is assumed to be universal and right.

Homosexuals have private homosex, but seek public recognition and acceptance of their relationships through several avenues like public parades and protests. Privacy is not what they seek, since they have it already. Publicity of their “privacy” that can psychosocially normalize homosex and break down public resistance is the goal. Homosexuals are trying to influence societal norms just like the church. So, to talk of the church as a homophobic or bigoted obstacle to sexual freedom is to try to exclude and mute the influence of the church as an important public moral voice in Caribbean society.

Furthermore, the concept of universal human rights, as some have related it to homosex, does not address how to resolve public conflict of rights in society and in what way homosex is universal and right. In any public conflict of rights, say right to conscience versus sexual orientation right, one right will be made fundamental and the other less than fundamental. Merely using accusatory terms like “disadvantaged groups,” “abuse of minority,” “exclusionary approach” and “tyranny” in context of homosexual cause and the Caribbean church and society only fly on broken wings of emotionalism and appeals to sympathy without good reason.

In certain parts of the US and Canada, opponents of homosex have been fined or imprisoned for publicly opposing homosex, but homosexuals are not fined or imprisoned for publicly berating the church. They call the church bigoted for disapproving and not accommodating homosex, while they reverse bigotry by disapproving and not accommodating opposition to homosex.

In the Caribbean, homosexuals have been physically threatened, or attacked, or killed because of their orientation and behavioural expression or public display or promotion of it. The church community, however, disapproves of both homosex and violence against homosexuals. But it is argued by some gay rights activists that opposition to homosex is a source of social homophobia. The case for such argument has not been made and even if it were true, then, attackers can also use any other reason to attack homosexuals, such as the way they walk, talk, dress, the places they go, or the company they keep, or coming out. With such questionable or farfetched reasoning not only opposition to homosex needs changing. The way some homosexuals walk, talk, dress, the places they go, or the company they keep, or coming out, all these would be sources of homophobia to be changed.

So, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church? After all, homosexuals’ bodies, butts, behaviours, brains, buggery, and bugs are theirs, not the church’s, even though some of them may belong to a church. The church should not talk for or over homosexuals, and homosexuals cannot control the church. Therefore, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?

If homosex is exclusively a private matter, should it be publicly promoted in any form or fashion, or legally protected, or religiously accepted? Does the church have a right to tell homosexuals not to have homosex? Are laws or sermons against homosex codes for or reinforcements of violent attacks against homosexuals in the Caribbean? As analogies, do laws against incest, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, and drug trafficking mean attack the violators?

There is no link between believing homosex is wrong and acting to wrong homosexuals physically. Physical attackers of homosexuals can use any reason in an effort to justify their nefarious acts, while accusers of the church bypass them to wrongly assign blame to the church. There are unbalanced and uncompassionate people in the church community as well as the homosexual community. So, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex, if there is a right to sex, more than the Caribbean church?

If there is a right to sexual satisfaction, how far do we extend this right to sex and on what basis? A non-discriminatory claim for the recognition of a variety of sexual orientations would have to include orientations toward multiple sex partners (polysexuality), children (pedophilia), blood relatives (incest), animals (bestiality), sadomasochism, voyeurism, necrophilia and so on. Sexual libertinism would be the order of the day in the name of freedom, social inclusion, tolerance, equality and acceptance.

The separation of church and state does not eliminate the influence of the church on the society or the society on the church. The Caribbean church exists under the jurisdiction of the Caribbean state and in society. Religious and secular people, gay or straight, influence state decisions as members of political parties, government agencies, business enterprises and media corporations and as individual citizens. Efforts to remove church or homosexual influence from the Caribbean state/society are virtually impractical at the corporate level and the individual level. Therefore, one cannot legitimately talk of freedom and at the same time seek to totally erode dialogue, rivalry of influence, and jostling for legal advantage between the church and the homosexual community on the question of the right to sexual satisfaction in the Caribbean.

In a society with a multiplicity of sexual orientations, sexual laws cannot forbid any behavioural expression of sexual orientation and be non-discriminatory at the same time. However, Caribbean diverse society must draw the line somewhere, even when the line may only be drawn in the sand of social shifts and turns. Again, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?

September 09, 2014

Caribbeannewsnow

- Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church Part-2