Homosexuality is NOT a civil right « but rather a civil wrong!

(The following letter appeared in the Trinidad Express Newspaper on Sunday, November 28, 2010) Dear Editor, I have noted with concern the debate raging in Trinidad and Tobago about same-sex issues, and would be grateful for the opportunity to contribute! Recent letters by Rajiv Gopie, Julian Kenny and Kelvin Baldeosingh raise the bar in the level of duplicity and misinformation that the gay-militant community, or else their supporters, would want to foist upon Trinidadians! They typically offer no references, cite no figures, and ignore medical/legal authority. In other words, they are constructed on a flimsy framework of innuendo! Gay militancy, it seems, is founded on a gigantic hoax! Many of these pro-gay articles can easily be rebutted on several clear grounds, and we will address each of these gentlemen separately in the ensuing days. It is remarkable how their initial arguments have resembled those of undergraduate freshmen at a well-known university, and we can use this development as a backdrop to focus the discussion. Years ago, the gay-militant crowd urged the Christian community to show evidence outside of the Bible against homosexuality. Many Trinidadians can take comfort in the fact that many issues that the Bible addresses in single sentences, whole paragraphs or entire chapters at times is usually borne out by outstanding secular research! First, though, we should establish that homosexuality is not a civil right ... but rather a civil wrong! The task immediately devolves to each person in the debate/discussion to bring to bear a verifiable body of information, and a consensus of professional opinion, to the table. This enables Trinidadians to make responsible, informed, decisions. The evidence will show that it is the complete absence of such an endeavour by gay-militancy that has shaped social-policy encounters over the past decades. We assess this sad but true occurrence at page 1 of the online summary ³The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality´ ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality ). It addresses the fact that CARICOM was/is generally right about advocating that Laws against homosexual and transgender activity exist for good legal, medical, societal and personal reasons! We have copied the article above to every Attorney-General in the region! Essential reading will also be the book by lawyer and author Roger J. Magnuson ("Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy´; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266). The excerpts below are taken from his arguments at pgs. 67-137, particularly pgs. 82-89). Initially, he has framed the debate this way: "... The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists merit and demand serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate." (Magnuson pg. 137). Thirdly, how does the average Trinidadian diffrentiate between legitimate civil rights and the demands of behaviour-based groups? A good start would be to consider the medical evidence and history for the latter. For example, a university student recently adverted to the homosexual¶s ³« propensity to sexual promiscuity because they are disallowed any complete interpersonal relationship «´, and this would simply be untrue. The tonnage of literature available states that such ³propensity to sexual promiscuity´ is a function, firstly, of raging psycho-sexual disorder and, secondly, a consequential desire to recruit in a spiraling cycle of compulsive domination because those so afflicted cannot procreate with artificial ³sex´. Readers can get a quick introduction into the psychosexual and politically-correct issues that have tainted the landscape of gay-militant illogic by reading ³Sexual Politics And Scientific Logic: The Issue Of Homosexuality´ (http://www.pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html ) by Dr. Charles W. Socarides. If this were not enough, then additional reading could be Kathleen Melonakos' "Why isn't Homosexuality Considered a Disorder on the Basis of its Medical Consequences?". Fourthly, from a "civil rights" standpoint, the same student cited the ³... loss of friends and the respect of family and dependants´ as a function of society¶s "malice", but this is again untrue. Readers will undoubtedly get an insight into the true nature of that disassociation by reading the online article ³The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual´ ( http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2±Nicolosi±mss.htm ) by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi contends that ABSOLUTELY NO scientific rationale accompanied the "removal", and is yet to be rebutted effectively. An excerpt from that same article reads: ³« Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too±who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant±proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it ³just doesn¶t seem right"«.´ Fifthly, as a precursor to the civil-rights argument, the student´ referred to " ... the agonies of remorse and self-torture over what they feel to be their immoral desires ..." and this is readily addressed by considering the true nature of the psycho-sexual deception that fuels same-sex-attraction-disorders. When left to itself, or given the space to consider nitself "normal", a disorder will always seek to impose its madness on society. We should then contemplate the words of Dr. Socarides, cited before at http://www.pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html : ³« [In the late 1960¶s] Clearly a disturbing trend was developing, with homosexuals banding together, not to demand help from psychiatry and the medical profession and public recognition of their condition (alongside those individuals with any form of neurosis or emotional disorder) or simply to protest against legal injustices, but to proclaim their "normality" and attack all opposition to this view« By declaring a condition a "non-condition," a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years, for example, the Report of the Committee of Cooperation with Governmental (Federal) Agencies of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1955); the New York Academy of Medicine Report (1964); the Task Force Report of the New York County District Branch of the APA done in 1970-72 (Socarides, et. al., 1973)«.´

Sixthly, therefore, we can finally address the student's attempt to equate the gay-militant agenda with the civil rights movement in his citation that ³«There are laws against discrimination on the basis of race and national origin ...´ Indeed there are, but these laws exist for good, sound, social reasons. Again, lawyer Roger J. Magnuson ("Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!") would go on: "... As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade. The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination ... based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational; ... causing substantial injury ... to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status ... which has no element of moral fault...´

Finally, essential reading by Trinidadian citizens should therefore be Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia¶s treatment ³Homosexuality is not a Civil Right´ ( http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ). The following excerpt is instructive: ³«. When protecting one¶s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the ³Laws of Nature and of Nature¶s God,´ as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting ³rights´ to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government²family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement«.´ Altogether, these solid pieces of evidence initially illustrate the folly in the contention that "gay-rights" can be equated with "civil-rights", and are addressed in even greater detail in the online articles ³The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality´ cited above, and, since the issue of sexual deviance will inevitably lead to considerations of transgenderism (remember, gay activists refer to the GBLT "community"), the other online article "The Case Against Cross-dressing and Transgenderism in Guyana" ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/27698238/The-Case-AgainstCross-Dressing-or-Transgender-ism-in-Guyana-UPDATED ). The last sentence in the online article "Surgical Sex" by Dr. Paul McHugh would be ... revealing ... to most Trinidadians! He maintains that ³... We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it ..." Civil rights are not based on whimsy in sane societies. We will find that victims of same-sex attraction disorders do not need legislation to affirm their psycho-sexual distress, but rather medical treatment and spiritual therapy to confront and treat the afflictions. The final issue facing Trinidadians may well be this one: In the mindless pursuit of "tolerance, compassion and respect" being urged by gay militancy, will there be any room left for the truth? But ... it is the truth ... and moreso God's truth in Jesus ... that sets us all free... Yours faithfully Roger Williams "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen." "RogerWilli" at Yahoo Messenger

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful