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 
 

Jamaica is suffering from a poverty of ideas ...and already it appears as if the new administration is ready to fall into the same ditch of intellectual and creative stagnation that characterised previous governments

The poverty of ideas and action

HEART TO HEART

With Betty Ann Blaine

Dear Reader,

For a country with some of the most brilliant minds one could find anywhere, I continue to be perplexed by the deficit of ideas, and worse yet, the lack of courage and conviction of those who are educated to challenge the status quo.

The recently concluded election campaign was an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. It wasn't just that the platforms boiled down to a "tracing" match between the two main rivals about who was more corrupt than whom, it was also the complete lack of intellectual rigour commensurate with a society that has such a large class of educated people and a wide assortment of schools, colleges and universities.

The questions that I keep asking are, "How can a country with such a high concentration of intellectual capital be teetering on the verge of collapse? What is it that accounts for the gap between the "brilliance" on the one hand, and the "broken" on the other?

I would hope that these are questions occupying the minds of the leaders of our major educational institutions, and if they aren't, then clearly something is radically wrong and they ought to "wake up and smell the coffee". As far as I am concerned, if the country's tertiary institutions are not producing transformational leaders, then they might as well call it a day and go into some other kind of business.

The point is that if the society is failing, then so are our institutions of higher learning, and those who continue to live in the ivory towers of academia had better begin paying attention to what is happening on the outside of those walls.

What is even more perplexing is the fact that we now have living examples all over the world to emulate and encourage us to action. Globally, 2011 can be best described as "the year of people power". In the most striking and spontaneous fashion, people all over the globe took to the streets last year. To my mind, the Arab Spring best epitomises the dynamism of the movements in the Middle East, followed by the "Occupy Wall Street Movement" in the United States and across the world. Of note was the huge population of young people positioned at the forefront of the various uprisings and direct action campaigns.

So what is the difference between those young people and ours? What exactly is going on at our colleges and universities that is inhibiting youth activism? The Prophet Muhammad was quoted as saying, "If you see something wrong with the world, change it with your hands". That powerful statement should be inscribed on the walls of our educational institutions and embedded in the policies, programmes and culture of all those places where learning takes place.

One of the criticisms I have of the new People's National Party (PNP) administration is its perpetuation of political "parochialism". So far, every major appointment made is based entirely on loyalty to party, and while we understand that rewarding party faithful is germane to politics as we know it, it's a pity that the PNP doesn't appreciate the need to engage some of those in the society who are independent, progressive thinkers into its administration. The example set by US President Barack Obama in the way he embraced and invited his Republican rival into his Cabinet, was not only exemplary, it was smart. Obama made it clear that it was going to be country over party and he reached out for the best man to do the job.

And there are numerous scholars and experts with excellent ideas for reconstructing the Jamaican society and economy. Not only is there a repository of knowledge and experience waiting to be the tapped, but the capacity of those to network with colleagues and contemporaries outside of Jamaican is clearly underestimated.

Jamaica is suffering from a poverty of ideas, and already it appears as if the new administration is ready to fall into the same ditch of intellectual and creative stagnation that characterised previous governments.

Among the critical areas of national development is education reform and there are experts both inside and outside of Jamaica with a lot to offer. Last Thursday, I had the distinct pleasure of attending a public lecture hosted by the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) at the University of the West Indies. The main presentation was delivered by Professor Pedro Noguera of New York University, a leading expert in education and education transformation. Addressing the topic, "Education for Social and Economic Development: toward a more equitable and Just Jamaica in the 21st century", Professor Noguera, whose mother, interestingly, is Jamaican, skilfully outlined the problems and the solutions for education transformation. The ideas were fresh, dynamic and workable, and the only thing that I regretted was that the new minister of education was not present. It was definitely information and ideas for policy makers and implementers.

It is high time we narrow the huge gap between the intellectual prowess on the one hand and the realities of day-to-day living on the other, not only for the stimulation and sustenance of progressive and enlightened thought, but also for the advancement of the common man.

With love,
bab2609@yahoo.com

January 24, 2012

jamaicaobserver

Sex, scandal and society

Barbara Gloudon




THERE'S nothing we love more than a juicy scandal. Bring it on, especially if politics and politicians are in the mix-up and blenda. Our adrenalin gets going when the talk turns to corruption and any kinda ruption, which can prove what we believe -- that politics and politricks walk hand in hand. A recent survey says corruption is diminishing a bit, but let's see before we break out the champagne.

Up North, the three-letter word (S-E-X) is part of the scandal equation not only for errant politicians but for sports persons and entertainment superstars. There's nothing to boost ratings in the media like news of a headliner caught with pants down. (Remember President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?) Efforts to take the US economy out of its tailspin paled in significance to the lurid coverage of Tiger Woods' dalliance.

Now that he's handed over a hefty chunk of his fortune to his ex-wife and is fighting a slump in his golf game, interest in him has waned considerably. He is not the first US hero to crumble under the crushing weight of a sex scandal. It's happened before and will happen again, so long as women are drawn by the aphrodisiac of fame, athletic physiques, and the possibility of a pay-off.

The groupie phenomenon is prevalent in the entertainment world but somehow, if we're to go by reports, entertainers do not seem to crash as spectacularly as sporting heroes. In our territory (the Caribbean), we are not as concerned about the romantic life of our superstars, not even when they mistreat women. Sadly, very often their staunchest defenders, willing to forgive, are women... The boys pretty much do what they want, thanks to the culture of — "Man haffe do wha a man haffe do — yuh nuh". The word for the boys: "If you can afford it, go for it. Nutten wrong wid gal inna bungle."

On the occasions when we do get a glimpse of the dark side of a hero, we don't quite know what to make of it. The recent exposé by England's notorious SUN tabloid of the alleged boudoir exploits of our Number One name-brand runner-boy, may have excited comment Up There but has barely evoked a whisper Down Here. In some quarters, there seems to be nothing but admiration among "the boys" for our young hero's achievement of having two hot young women fighting over him and the drama played out in the media.

The claim of one of the women that she has received text messages to participate in...shall we say, group activities... is definitely TMI — Too Much Information — for some, but not everyone. I met one person who responded, "All that stuff about threesomes and foursomes, who can prove that he really said it? Who knows if the girl is telling the truth?" Another view was, "So what? If he can manage it, why should anybody be concerned?" Then there are the many variations on the theme: "Youthful exuberance, that is all it is. What do you expect of a 24-year-old, with all that money and all that fame?" Not surprisingly, the foregoing responses came from men. One woman's response was, "I don't believe he would do that."

Should it matter really what this young man or any of our other young achievers do with their private time? Why shouldn't an athlete, an entertainer or anyone else who has attained success, be free to enjoy the benefits of their efforts in whatever permutations they choose? So long as no laws are being broken, should the rest of the community have any right to pass judgement on their private conduct? Not everyone is comfortable with that. What about moral values, role model and all that? Shouldn't we expect a certain level of conduct from people whom we hold up as icons?

Let's face it — arguments based on morality don't get very far here. Check the debates on lewd lyrics, slackness in dancehall and in the electronic media. A popular response is that people should be allowed to do what they want to do. "Leave us alone, thank you, please". That is for everybody except the politicians. So far nobody seems interested in their sex life. We leave that to those Up North. But back to the super-heroes, should they care if we find out what they do when the lights are turned off?

They need to be reminded that it doesn't take much for the cheers to stop. It is not such a long way from today's super-hero to tomorrow's "super-who"? The feeling is that we should not be too hard on "the youths". It's not such an easy thing to go overnight from pickney looking a lunch money and a bus fare, to platinum-card millionaire. It seems almost ungracious to warn about the potholes which can develop along the way.

Since Beijing, many of our young athletes have gained worldwide fame, and with it, healthy financial returns. They have become our new standard-bearers representing the best of JA. We've proclaimed them to be our Brand Jamaica. Should we expect any more of them? For the most part, they have been doing so well. Perhaps it is time for a little word of caution, however, that juvenile over-indulgence is to be avoided at all costs, especially too much information on bedroom olympics.

MR CLINTON CAME TO TOWN: Billed as an evening of intellectual challenge, it could not escape, however, being another high society event. It's the times! How could a former President of the United States of America come to town and we didn't play dress-up and nibble on gourmet delicacies? (Never mind that he spoke about poverty.)

The promoters apparently had their own reason for confining it to a high-end audience with an entrance fee of J$13,000 for regulars and US$1,000 for VIPs, I'm told. That was guaranteed to exclude those who wrestle every day with the soaring cost of chicken and flour. Corporate sponsorship more than took care of both the Bill and the bill. Not surprisingly, the event was an overwhelming success, fully sold out.

Feedback is that some thought the speech was the best thing since sliced bread. Others said they'd heard it all before. Some asked, why did it have to take a visitor (no matter how presidential) to make us sit up and listen to what we've been told often before (for example, urgency of solar energy) but haven't been interested enough to hear? Most said just to be in Bill Clinton's presence was worth it all.

DIS-COVER-UP: Did you see the disguises of the new millionaire winners in the Lotto Jackpot advertisement this week? Talk about Halloween! There's no limit to which some people will go to keep friends and relatives from beggie-beggie!... SING ON, COOL RULER... Gregory Isaacs moves on to the Ultimate Engagement. Another page is turned... The vintage list is getting shorter.

gloudonb@yahoo.com

October 29, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International