Letter of the Day: Gays and the illusion of marriage equality
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I write in response to Dr Michael Abrahams' letter titled 'Misplaced priorities and the anti-gay agenda', published on Monday, October 5, 2015, which is, curiously, The Gleaner's sole reference to the Jamaica CAUSE rally of more than 25,000 persons that took place last week Sunday.
On June 27 this year, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same-sex marriage was legal nationwide, and the Obama administration lit up the White House in rainbow colours to celebrate this decision. Many supporters dubbed this as 'marriage equality' because gay men and lesbian women finally had the freedom to marry other men and women, respectively.
Putting aside the fact that gays and lesbians have always had the right to marry persons of the opposite sex, I maintain that while this ruling was a redefinition of marriage, it falls far short of marriage equality.
Even with the ruling, two men and two women can marry each other only if they are not blood relatives because there is no marriage 'equality' for incestuous couples. An adult cannot marry someone under the age of 18 years, regardless of his/her minor-attracted orientation.
And at the end of the day, marriage still discriminates against single people, heterosexual or not, by necessitating the involvement of two persons.
To say that the Obama administration has promoted tolerance is a fallacy; it has only promoted illogical, incoherent public policy that is founded on sexual desires (no matter how perverted). Even in allegedly promoting tolerance, Obama is yet to tolerate a range of sexual expressions (such as incest and polyamory, even if they involve consenting adults) by legalising marriage in those forms.
At some point, you have to draw a line. Every person will disapprove of some behaviour or another - and even the disillusioned 'liberal' who preaches tolerance implicitly disapproves of the act of disapproval, to their own shame and hypocrisy.
At some point, you have to acknowledge that some behaviours (such as anal penetration) are so inherently unhealthy that you can't just slap a piece of plastic on it and call it 'safe sex'. There's nothing 'safe' about being 18 times more likely to contract HIV than actual sex, which can produce human life.
At some point, you can't slap 'phobia' at the end of a behaviour you endorse in order to demonise those who disagree with you.
We have reached that point, as a nation, and especially as the Church, as demonstrated in Half-Way Tree at the Jamaica CAUSE rally.
Love March Movement