Sun | Dec 17, 2017

Shirley Richards | But me no butts

Published:Saturday | October 14, 2017 | 12:00 AM
Shirley Richards

Please allow me to respond to your Letter of the Day published on October 9, 2017 under the title 'Intensify dialogue on scrapping buggery law'. The letter was written by the Bishop of Buckingham (England), along with Father Sean Major-Campbell. This Bishop of Buckingham is on record urging politicians to force the Church of England "to allow gay clergy to marry". (The Telegraph, April 10, 2015).

It is significant to note the role of the Homosexual Law Reform Society in the passage of the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, which repealed the buggery law in England. In the House of Lords' debate surrounding the passage of the said act, Sir Cyril Black pointed out, "This bill is a further step in a long public campaign, a campaign to change the existing law, a campaign fostered by the Homosexual Law Reform Society."

Thus we realise that the Anglicans and other groups were not acting on their own; instead, they were swayed by the agenda of the homosexual groups.

Note the use of the term 'gay sex' in the second sentence of the bishop's letter. This is important. It means that the Anglican Church in Britain, which initially held the biblical view that buggery is sinful, has shifted and now regards buggery as 'sex'.

This false labelling of buggery as 'sex' is another example of how familiar words have been twisted and misused by LGBT activists. While it is a form of sexual activity, it is not 'sex', for how can the insertion of the penis in the vagina be equivalent to the insertion of the penis into the anus? They are two different actions with very different consequences.

This is the same error into which Chief Justice Benjamin of Belize fell in his use of the words 'anal sex'. The Anglican Church in England has so regressed on this matter that recently when the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby was asked if "gay sex" was sinful, he replied: "You know very well that is a question I can't give a straight answer to. Sorry, badly phrased there. I should have thought that one through."

Pressed on why he could not answer, the archbishop said: "Because I don't do blanket condemnation and I haven't got a good answer to the question. I'll be really honest about that. I know I haven't got a good answer to the question." (The Guardian, October 1, 2017).

 

LAW CHANGING CULTURE

 

Admittedly, the attitude in some parts of England has changed to that of embracing the homosexual lifestyle. This is an example of how changing law can change culture.

In his letter, the Bishop of Buckingham made reference to HIV rates in the Caribbean, but he has neglected to inform us that,

" Gay men everywhere have higher rates of HIV than in the general population ... . It is estimated that the HIV rate in MSM is eight times that of the general population in low-income countries and 23 times the general-population rate in high-income ... . In the developed world, the US has, by some way, the highest rate of HIV new diagnoses in MSM, though the UK has possibly the highest current rate in Europe. (Professor Kevin Fenton, national director of health and well-being, Public Health, England 2013 (http://www.aidsmap.com/page/2805378/)

The activity, which the bishop so glibly refers to as "gay sex", does not have 'gay' consequences, neither in England, where there is no law against buggery, nor in Jamaica, where a law against buggery exists.

The buggery law is consistent with the design of our bodies. Without that law, the lines between what is normal sexual behaviour and what is abnormal will be blurred and will, in time, disappear.

Further, the law provides a philosophical undergirding for true marriage. It protects freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, religious liberty and the rights of parents and guardians to protect their children from being taught a distorted sex-education curriculum in schools or other institutions

There is a lesson, which the very Reverend Bishop of Buckingham needs to learn from the children of ex-slaves, which is that the insertion of a gas pump into the gas tank is not the same as the insertion of the gas pump into the tail pipe.

- Shirley Richards is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@

gleanerjm.com and sprichards82@yahoo.com.