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 
 

Is civil society becoming extinct?

By Anthony GOMES

 

THROUGHOUT the world, civil society is disappearing and being replaced by violence of all descriptions and brutality of the worst kind. Apart from the cultural coarsening of civil society, whether they include violent street protests. engaging the police at one end of the spectrum, or civil war fuelled by sectarian lifestyle differences, the planet again faces the possibility of world conflagration.

The humanitarian tragedy of Syria, the Boko Haram Islamic uprising in Nigeria, the sabre-rattling aggression of North Korea, the unwinnable Afghanistan campaign, the neutralising of al-Qaeda in Yemen, the intense cultural differences between Sunni and Shea in Iraq, the interventions by Iran in Iraq and Lebanon by Hezbollah, and incursions by al-Qaeda in Mali, Algeria and Libya all began with inaccurate Western intelligence regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), that were never found. Theey were recently believed to be stored in Syria, mainly consisting of chemical weapons, and used, according to France and the EU, against the Syrian rebel cohorts. Let us also not forget the struggle in Pakistan against the al-Qaeda Taliban. Being a nuclear power with a well-stocked atomic arsenal, Pakistan is of serious concern to the Western powers, lest atomic weapons were to fall into the hands of the Taliban.

As described above, there is no denying that the deadly plague of terrorism is spreading beyond all borders, in the name of Islam. In recent years al-Qaeda has suffered heavy losses resulting from drone strikes that regrettably have a high rate of collateral damage, which has made them a very unpopular offensive weapon. The al-Qaeda magazine Inspire has revealed their newly devised strategy that calls for home-grown individual jihadists, who have been radicalised to carry out attacks, mostly on "soft" targets; similar to the Boston bombings, the murder of the young Fusilier in London, and the latest shootings with the resemblance of an al-Qaeda operation in Santa Monica, US, that is yet to be confirmed. The Western Christian powers are still considering how to deal with this new offensive self-sacrificing run of events.

Since the end of WW II, the faith and morals of the Christian West have undergone serious diminution in the cause of social freedom, sovereignty, and fuelled by secularism that has given new intepretation to what is right or wrong. Traditions and other cultural norms have been tested in the legal and ecclesiastical domains, widening the meaning of "truth" to embrace influential factors of human rights, gender and race, all of which have spawned pernicious arguments, which may be termed "modern" jurisprudence. In colloquial language: "One can do no wrong," if you can afford a skilled defender.

These liberalised modern statutes represent a departure from what was considered normal or accepted, or regarded as right. This new-founded attitude has given rise to open disobedience that challenges all the rules of the historic social establishment which, in too many cases, ends up in tragedy. The sinister characteristics can be seen in the murder of innocents, the aged, decapitations, abortion, and euthanasia, to list some of the more common acts that stalk the "land we love". The defenders of human rights from abroad find it difficult to grasp the multiple and brutal murders that occupy the pages and waves of our media. They find it difficult to understand why capital punishment is appropriate in such indescribable assaults on human kind. This mindset is due, in part, to the landmark case of Ruth Ellis, which changed the previously held attitude to capital punishment in the UK.

In 1955, in Britain, the practice of capital punishment encountered a major challenge which resulted in the mandatory requirement for the death penalty in capital cases being removed. Until then, there was strong support for the application of the death penalty, dictated by the law at that time. However, with the landmark case of Ruth Ellis, a 28-year-old young woman born in North Wales on 9th October 1925, who was the last woman to be hanged on 13th July 1955 at Her Majesty's woman's prison, Holloway, in London. Her case was one of premeditated murder to which she confessed, and, according to public opinion, would have been classified in this century as a "crime passionelle" that warranted life imprisonment. She was executed by Albert Pierrepoint, a member of the historically famous family of executioners. The event caused a fundamental change in public opinion that has reshaped contemporary jurisdiction in the UK.

Since then, Western societies have witnessed a raft of dramatic liberalisations which have changed the current social lifestyles across the Western hemisphere from same-sex unions to rampant multiple shootings of innocent civilians and schoolchildren, due to the easy possession of powerful military-type firearms which, in the case of the US, is enshrined in the Second Amendment of their constitution and relentlessly upheld by the powerful National Rifle Association.

The cost of maintaining the new-found liberalised lifestyle comes at a high price, with many deserving malevolent souls walking free, given the present complex system of proving guilt due to the monumental earnings in circulation from the drugs trade, and the threatened reprisals against the families of witnesses that form the themes of the nightly television stories that are becoming more realistic as time goes by.

May we be guided to calmer waters by the prayers of the faithful.

June 12, 2013

Jamaica Observer

Bahamas Blog International

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