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 
 

Homosexuals In Jamaica

Do Homosexuals Have A Place In Jamaica

By Jaevion Nelson:

FOR SOME strange reason we have concluded that retaining the buggery law can prevent people from being born homosexual. On top of that, we want nothing to do with homosexuality but talk about it, usually expressing disparage, at every waking moment in songs, political speeches, and sermons. In Jamaica, your (gay or lesbian) sexual orientation is an axis on which grave discrimination and even violence occurs but the commonplace homophobia is often denied.

In a contribution in the Winter 2010 edition of Americas Quarterly Magazine, entitled 'The Advocate', I highlighted that "the dominant heterosexual culture [in Jamaica] continues to breed intolerance, revealed in inadequate public policies" and laws to all sectors of society including educational and religious institutions.

Notwithstanding the antipathy which exists, more and more Jamaicans are becoming open about their sexual orientation. Many people see persons they think are homosexual - usually effeminate males and 'masculine' females - and conclude that we are not homophobic. People who are opposed to constitutional provisions for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) seemingly think their brothers and sisters who are non-heterosexual are not deserving of being called Jamaican.

Nothing could be more ludicrous. How can this be so when so many LGBT people are active participants in the development of Jamaica. As my friend Javed Jaghai, an openly gay Jamaican, said, "if every gay person working in mass media, law, government, banking and insurance, tourism and the performing arts were to take a year-long leave of absence tomorrow, their sudden departure would send tremors through the various sectors."

Regrettably, LGBT people's contribution to our national vision to make Jamaica a developed country by 2030 will never truly materialise with the distinctions which currently exist in our society about the respect for one set of people over another. The majority of a subsample of businesspeople in the 2012 National Survey on Homophobia revealed they would not readily hire a gay or lesbian person. It is my hope that all Jamaicans will recognise and appreciate that a country is enriched when it reaches out to all its citizens, enshrines the dignity of all and celebrates diversity. A contrary approach, which criminalises those who do no harm to others, makes outcasts of some and narrows the definition of who is truly Jamaican.

It is my firm belief that more must be done and can be done to achieve our national vision to ensure that the "Jamaican society is secure, cohesive and just" by promoting tolerance and respect for human rights and freedoms, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, socio-economic status, disability or health status.

Contribution to development

Importantly, despite what appears to be widespread fear of and dislike for homosexuals in Jamaica, many respondents in the National Survey of Attitudes and Perceptions to Same-sex Relationships, conducted in 2010 by Professor Ian Boxill, readily point out that persons who are homosexual make an important contribution to the society. Most Jamaicans believe that homosexuals are and can be productive members of society. They conceded, on some level, that many homosexuals are 'normal' and that they may be interacting with us every day and not know our sexual orientation.

As Jamaicans, we should all lend our support to human rights advocacy so our Government can demonstrate leadership and protect members of the LGBT community. Already, a third of Jamaicans believe they aren't doing enough in this regard. We must take important steps to make Jamaica the country for people to live, work, raise families and do business. We should ensure that the Jamaican law is based on the concepts of inclusivity and dignity, and on an appreciation of contemporary science on human sexuality, not on prejudice, fear and misinformation.

This is achievable given that the Government has on more than one occasion committed itself to protect persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity from human-rights abuses at the regional and international levels. These commitments encourage us to condemn, and take steps to address, all areas of human rights violations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. We have already articulated the need to address human rights violations throughout Vision 2030, the national development plan.

As J-FLAG, the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays, has said, "We must commit to rebuild this great nation on the principle of understanding ourselves and fellow men and women. Each of us should invest in promoting equality ... Gay or straight, Christian or non-Christian, JLP or PNP, let us use our talents and resources for the betterment of our country."

Jaevion Nelson is a youth development, HIV and human rights advocate. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com  and jaevion@gmail.com.

March 14, 2013

Jamaica Gleaner

Bahamas Blog International

Obama, Buju & gays

Ian Boyne

Jamaica's President of choice in the United States, the deeply loved Barack Obama, facilitated an historic and far-reaching victory for gays on Wednesday when he signed the first major piece of gay-rights legislation into federal law, an act seen as path-breaking as the 1960s civil rights legislation.

Large numbers of Jamaicans, who share a cult-like adoration of Obama and an even more vehement aversion to homosexuals, must be in what the psychologists call cognitive dissonance. It's just hard to hold those two things together in one heart. Rationalisation is usually the way out. What seems undeniable, though, is that Obama is the most gay-friendly president the United Sates has had - at least publicly.

From his presidential campaign he made it clear that he would advance the cause of gays as part of his overall mantra of inclusiveness. He had promised to support this new legislation, labelling as 'hate crime' violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, putting it on par with crimes against persons for racial, religious and ethnic reasons. Gay-rights activists see this as a major victory on the road to full integration in American society.

For a crime is a crime and violence is violence, so if someone gets murdered, for whatever reasons, the law has provisions to deal with that. As well-known homosexual columnist Andrew Sullivan has written: "The real reasons for the hate crime laws are not a defence of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that - Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate-crimes law at the time".

The amendment made into law on Wednesday was partially in honour of Matthew Shepherd, a 21-year-old student at the University of Wyoming, who died after a 1998 beating targeting him because he was gay. His parents led the struggle for this legislation. "This hate-crimes bill is the proverbial foot in the door or camel nose in the tent that makes possible - indeed inevitable - all future laws involving 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity', screams the Harvard and Princeton-educated theologian Robert Gagnon, who has written the finest theological work critiquing homosexuality (The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics).

Gagnon, in a paper titled, 'Why a sexual orientation and gender identity hate crimes law is bad for you', posits that this legislation "ensconces in federal law the principle that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality are as benign as race, gender and disability - an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated. Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots."

The founder of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Forum, Malcolm Lazin, was not unmindful of the significance of the Obama-signed legislation on Wednesday. He was quoted in the media as saying, "This is really the first federal gay-rights bill. So it is a literally historic moment. This is America acknowledging homophobia as a social problem". For Republicans and conservative religious folks, this is a major retreat for America, morally, as the gay lobby advances in its mission of gaining full acceptance - and even persecuting those who would beg to differ.

Fears are being expressed that free speech could be endangered by this legislation, in that strong opposition to homosexual behaviour could be construed as incitement to violence. For example, if someone quotes the Old Testament which says homosexuals are to be killed (and it does say that) and a homosexual gets killed nearby afterward, could that person be charged with inciting violence? Or if one preaches that homosexuality is an "abomination", which the Bible says, could he be prosecuted for a hate crime?

In 2007 two 16-year-old girls were arrested on hate-crime charges for distributing about 40 fliers on cars in the student parking lot of their school, featuring two boys kissing. The pamphlets also contained what was considered anti-homosexual slur. The assistant state attorney for the county, Thomas Carroll, stated then: "You can be charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based on a person's race, creed, gender or perceived sexual orientation." And another Assistant State Attorney, Robert Windon said, "We do not feel this type of behaviour is what the First Amendment protects". Hate crimes are now part of federal law and the rub is, what can be deemed to be incitement or inducement to violence?

Preachers and ordinary Christians fear that they might soon not be able to as speak out against homosexuality at all. There was an important protective clause in the legislation which was subsequently taken out and which would have given more solace to conservatives. When the Bill was originally introduced in the US House of Representatives, it contained this provision: "Noting in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise of the First Amendment to the Constitution".

cause of concern:

But House Democrats deleted the following words: "the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to". That these words were omitted is a cause of concern to conservative religious people, particularly the Christian Right. There are already disturbing indications that hate crimes legislation can lead to an abridgement of free speech. In a number of European and Scandinavian democracies, verbal opposition to homosexuality has been punished.

Gagnon cites some examples from neighbouring Canada where free speech infringements have been flagrant as a result of simple opposition to homosexuality. For example, a Roman Catholic priest who writes for Catholic Insight magazine has been fined and threatened with imprisonment for speaking out against homosexual behaviour. One Roman Catholic activist, Bill Whatcott, has been fined for producing pamphlets calling homosexuality immoral. Pastor Stephen Boisson was ordered to desist from expressing his views on homosexual behaviour in any public forum after he wrote a letter to the press denouncing homosexuality as immoral.

Says Gagnon expressing fears about the impact of the passage of this new federal law : "The argument that free speech protections in the US constitution will prevent such abuses from taking place rings hollow in view of the inducement to violence provision in Title 18.2 and in view of the fact that even Supreme Court justices have taken to citing precedents in foreign law (e.g. the Lawrence sodomy decision). Moreover, we already have instances in the US where 'sexual orientation' laws led to abridgements of other liberties".

Most Jamaican Obama lovers would be deeply disturbed by a speech he gave at the Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month Reception at the White House. They would be alarmed that the President could even welcome homosexuals with open arms to the White House. But the President welcomed the gays by saying "Welcome to your White House".

In this speech delivered on June 29 this year, President Obama made this frightening statement (as it would be to fierce, visceral opponents of homosexuality here) : "I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

In this speech (what does Betty Ann Blaine think?), Obama spoke, some would say, patronisingly about those who "hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes". Obama pointed to things already achieved for the gay community - his signed memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families and his commitment to ending the ban on the entry of gays to the military.

slain homosexual student:

He said: "My administration is working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill". He then promised to sign a hate-crimes bill in honour of slain homosexual student Shepherd, whose parents were at the reception. (President Bush had previously refused to sign this bill)

Said Obama: "Someday, I'm confident, we'll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst." But he pledged to the homosexuals gathered at the White House to celebrate Gay Pride Month that: "We must continue to do our part to make progress - step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind." This is what frightens conservative people about the passage of this federal law last week.

The first black US president went on: "And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend but I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a president who fights for you". Jamaicans who are said to be homophobic will have a problem with that commitment, although, happily for them, the vast majority won't see these words hidden in long-winded columns.

Buju Banton is feeling the pressure of the gays. Even he was strategically forced to meet and greet them, posing uneasily with them. But their demands were hard: He should hold a town hall meeting declaring his love of homosexuals, sing songs urging love for our gay brothers and as though that were not enough, donate some funds to the gay cause through their local organisation. Buju declined, though he is getting flack for even meeting and greeting.

It is almost impossible to have a rational, dispassionate discussion about homosexuality in Jamaica for, on both sides - the enraged anti-gay Jamaican majority and the embattled, defensive gay community - reason is expendable and emotions are at a premium. But the time is past due for a serious discussion of the issues. I am ready for the discourse. Are you -without the abuse, prejudice and name-calling?

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at iboyne1@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.

jamaica-gleaner

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International