Gordon Robinson | How stiff is your penalty?
A June 8, 2017 Gleaner report, 'Lawmakers urged to impose stiffer penalties for buggery', exasperated me.
Calling for more stiffness in buggery laws was president of the Marcus Garvey Research Institute. I don't recall Garvey complaining about stiffness with reference to buggery, but the subject seems to fascinate President Baba Heru Ishakamusa Menelik, who questioned whether homo-sexuality was a "normal and safe lifestyle that society should accept". He bemoaned what he saw as attempts to reclassify homo-sexuality as a "normal way of life".
First, if my name was Menelik, this is a subject I'd leave alone. I'm just saying. Don't get hot and bothered. Second, Menelik, relax. NOBODY thinks homosexuality is a 'way of life'. Ignorant victims of religious dogma have been known to call it a 'lifestyle', which, also incorrect, would be a jackass of a different jaw. Truth: Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality are sexual orientations. Perhaps Menelik's sexual orientation consumes his life, but that'd be abnormal. My way of life is reclusive. My profession is law. My sexual orientation is none of your business. What Menelik erroneously calls 'pro-homosexual groups' are simply people trying to keep all sexual orientations 'none of your business'.
Mounting every homophobe's favourite hobby horse, Menelik said, "Homosexual men spread HIV rapidly." Puh-leeeeeeeze! HIV is spread rapidly, inter alia, by any unprotected sex, shared needles and blood transfusions. Menelik appears to suggest that homosexuals met and conspired to create and spread HIV. It's a virus, nothing more, nothing less. Other viruses, also bacteria, parasites and yeast, are causes of infectious diseases transmitted rapidly by heterosexuals, including genital herpes, gonorrhoea, HIV/AIDS, HPV and syphilis.
Menelik contended that homosexuality is anti-life, noting, "This type of union will not produce children for the regeneration of life and society". Anti-life? Really? Seriously? So, what'd you call heterosexual couples unable to have children because of medical or psychological reasons? If both are sterile, are they anti-life? Or would only the heterosexual unable to conceive or fertilise be anti-life? Should we execute them? Or do you support modern fertility methods, adoption and surrogate mothers? If yes, why not adoption/surrogate mothers for same-sex couples? Answer me this, Menelik, are they people, too?
Menelik, be very careful before you ascribe such a demeaning description as "anti-life" to loving couples. If you want to see anti-life examples, follow the tale of a devoutly Christian, heterosexual couple whose beautiful baby is slaughtered in their home by gunmen. THAT's anti-life! What would you call terrorist suicide bombers? THAT's anti-life!
Homosexuals have been with us since the world began, yet the world's population has increased exponentially year after year. Homosexuals will be with us until thy kingdom come. If you're afraid of their challenge to your masculinity, YOU run and hide from them. Don't brand them with barbaric, bigoted indignities.
Menelik asserted, without evidence, that children raised in same-sex unions are more likely to engage in a homosexual and lesbian lifestyle. Oh? Menelik, where's the proof of that grossly homophobic assumption? Every reputable study on the subject has concluded exactly the opposite.
Recently, a most compre-hensive study (July 2012 by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas) attempted to disprove previous studies in this regard and did make findings supportive of Menelik's assertion. BUT those findings have subsequently been exposed as failing to reach the required "statistical signi-ficance" (see New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research by Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Washington based Family Research Council) of the more sounder findings relating to societal disadvantages for children of same sex couples. These children:
- are more likely to have received welfare.
- have lower educational attainment.
- report less safety and security in their family of origin.
- report more ongoing 'negative impact' from their family of origin.
- are more likely to suffer from depression.
- have been arrested more often
- if female, have had more sexual partners (male and female).
I'll bet similar research into children of poor black American heterosexual parents would produce similar findings having more to do with societal intervention than upbringing. If we were better at loving our neighbour than judging him, we'd reverse many of these findings. Furthermore, it's not unusual for children of different parents to be different. Otherwise, we'd all be identical automatons.
As if in foetal position safely cringing inside every homo-phobe's final refuge, Menelik essayed a las' lick: "Studies consistently show men in homosexual relationships having multiple short-term partners." DWL! Menelik, heterosexual men NEVER have multiple short-term partners! Right?
Peace and love.
- Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to email@example.com.