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 
 

The facts about homosexuality

BY CYNTHIA BURTON

Jamaica Observer - Columns:

I want to add my thoughts to the much-talked about topic of homosexuality, and clarify, once and for all the facts about this lifestyle.

Let me first state that this issue is not only confined to the perspective of the church, but to the wider society as well.  The first point that must be made clear is that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.

Homosexuals were not created.  Man was created as a being of free choice.  He was also created with an inherent sexuality, which is also governed by choice.  If we look at nature and how it is designed, even the animals and plants exist as male and female.  It was so ordained for procreation.  Each creature has to procreate in a union of male and female to ensure the survival of their species.

 

I have used the word "created" guardedly, as there are those among us who do not believe in the creation theory, but would ascribe to the evolutionist theory that says man evolved from animal life.  Whatever your persuasion, we have to agree that the natural order of things is male and female.

 

This homosexual lifestyle is wrong and abhorrent, and moves so far beyond the realm of the Christian church that if you should examine all other major religions, such as Islam and Hinduism, homosexuality is tabooed.  Additionally, if you should approach the biggest don in the inner city or the dancehall artistes, who have nothing to do with the church, they will give out against this lifestyle.

In fact, several of them have been banned from certain countries because of the stance taken against their music which hits out against this lifestyle.

 

This lifestyle, therefore, is a classic case of doing and believing the thing that is wrong for such a long time that it now seems right.

 

Times have really changed as far as the acceptance of this lifestyle is concerned.

 

I remember as a child growing up that homosexuality had to be kept behind closed doors, and those who practised this way of life had to do so in their closets under circumstances of great privacy.

 

Now look at how our world has changed.  We not only now accept this as a way of life, but we are seeking further to endorse it, by allowing those who practise homosexuality to demand the same rights as heterosexuals.  We have now got to the point where we have put legislation in place to protect the rights of these persons, them the message that they have the right to this choice of lifestyle and can therefore make such demands.

 

Now let us look at the whole thing from the church's perspective.

 

What is the church?  The church in the bible is spoken about as the bride.  It is God's institution and the voice of God for man.

 

If we go back to the book of Genesis, at the time of creation in Genesis 1 vs 21:

 

"And God created great whales, and every living creature and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind and every winged fowl after his kind and God saw that it was good."

 

Genesis 1 vs 27 and 28:

 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.

 

(28) "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

 

Now for those who say that the Bible does not speak out against homosexuality, and that Jesus himself did not address this issue, let us move over to Romans 1 vs 24 - 27.

 

(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves,

 

(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie.

 

(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

 

(27)And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of a woman, burned in their lust one toward another men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error...

 

Now we see the implications of societal acceptance of homosexuality, that people who practise this lifestyle have taken this matter to a different level, where they are now heading up the church and purporting to lead God's flock. It is the tolerance of this lifestyle that has now resulted in these persons now demanding rights of those things that are rightly the purview of heterosexuals.

 

Let us go even further with this dilemma.  Now homosexuals are demanding the right of marriage and the right to adopt children.  Gay marriages are very popular in modern society.

 

Can you imagine a scenario where a gay couple adopts a child and takes on the responsibility of raising this child in a primarily homophobic society?  The child goes to school and the school hosts a PTA meeting.  These two parents, male for argument's sake, turn up at the PTA meeting.  Who is Mom and who is Dad?  Can you imagine this poor child the next day at school with the other children?

 

Let us be quite clear -- marriage was an institution ordained by God between a man and a woman who are expected to procreate and create the unit called the family.  So important is this institution that Jesus performed his first miracle at the wedding in Canaan of Galilee.

 

Now to the big question.  Is homosexuality a sin?  Let us look at the definition of sin.  Sin is transgression of God's law.  So those who argue that all sin is sin, may want to think again.  Homosexuality is not provided for in the 10 commandments, because it is considered an abomination to God, and those who practice this lifestyle are flying in God's face and going against the order of things as God intended.

 

Now there are those who will argue that God created homosexuals.  Let us be clear that God created all persons including the homosexual, but our sexuality and our sexual preference is as a result of the free choice with which we were all created.  Some of us choose heterosexuality, some homosexuality and some abstinence.  How could God create something that he abhors?

 

We can now see the dilemma that we have created as a society.  The wrong has now become the right, and we are now creating laws on our books to not only allow the homosexual his constitutional rights, and to fulfil his everyday needs as stated in Maslows' hierarchy of needs, the right of food, shelter, the right to earn a living, but by extension are protecting rights that God ordained to be enjoyed between a man and a woman.

 

Additionally, while acknowledging these rights, we also have to be cognisant to the fact that certain professions, such as teaching, are not compatible with this lifestyle, because of the risk of perpetrating and influencing the spread of this lifestyle amongst the youth.

 

Finally, let us give the homosexual the benefit of the doubt and say for a minute that homosexuality is accepted and should enjoy all these rights.

 

Can we take it to the extreme and ask the question.  What if all persons should adopt this lifestyle?  Can you imagine that the human race would become extinct, as the only thing that the homosexuals could not do is to procreate.

 

Finally, as a society, what legacy are we leaving for our children?  Already as we move from generation to generation, we find our youth becoming more tolerant of this lifestyle and are being taught in schools that it is all right to pursue this lifestyle.

 

What of our moral values as a society?  What will the decision makers of tomorrow embrace when they now become the leaders and legislators of tomorrow.

 

We therefore have to conclude that this lifestyle is unacceptable, abominable, and a clear message should be sent forthwith to all who choose to practise same, that they have the right to their sexuality, and all the other constitutional rights, based on their ability to contribute to society, but should not try to enforce this right to the point where we legislate for this lifestyle, thus threatening the whole moral fabric of society.

 

Let us therefore unite in a message of love to our homosexuals, that we love them as persons, but abhor their lifestyle.  Additionally, this lifestyle is not permanent, and can be subject to change as evidenced by reformed homosexuals.

 

If we examine the facts, we see that environmental factors such as economic circumstances, rather than genetic predisposition, have influenced homosexuality, and therefore organisations such as J-FLAG should actively try to secure a transformation of this lifestyle, rather than serve as a voice in society for its acceptance.

 

cynthiacburton@hotmail.com

February 09, 2013

Jamaica Observer