THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE RECENT and ongoing controversy over Jamaica's retention of the buggery law has made it quite plain that opposing forces have coalesced around debating this law because of what it stands for. It is obvious that the law has become symbolic of Jamaica's past recognition of a 'sane' and 'elevated lifestyle' for humans, especially our men! But today it has become Jamaica's last symbolic roadblock to the 'legal' acceptance of the gay lifestyle for men especially. It, therefore, becomes obvious why the heated debate centres around it, and why the gay-rights lobby is so incensed against its retention.
One must be ever mindful that the law not only directly prohibits the abominable practice of a male human penetrating an animal in the anus (this aspect no one disputes), but also prohibits a male penetrating another male for sexual gratification. The primary intention was to prohibit the male of the specie, the natural head of families, to engage in so-called 'sexual activities' with animals and with another male; activities that could not naturally perpetuate the species biologically, and which would debase the male as the head of a 'normal' family.
When the buggery law was passed, the head of Jamaica's government, the British monarch, was also the head of a Christian denomination, the Anglican Church (a fact that has not changed, despite Britain's recent posturing)! It was only natural that the buggery law passed by Britain itself (how ironic) also had links to the prohibition of sodomy in the biblical context. But never forget that all major cultures from time immemorial, no matter the religion involved (whether Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, orthodox Christianity, etc.), have frowned upon buggery as unnatural and humanly degrading.
It was not until in recent times that buggery laws were being seen as oppressive. And why? 'New age' thinking, increasing endorsement of sexual debauchery, and the invasion of libertine morals have been the main reasons why people have been wanting to cast off the 'shackles' of good sense and good taste in the field of human sexuality, and to underpin their desires with so-called 'human-rights' propaganda.
It may be true that the buggery law in and of itself is not an effective means of preventing or controlling sexual diseases related to the gay lifestyle, neither does it necessarily keep in check the growing numbers of those opting for the gay lifestyle, but if even for the symbolic message involved, I insist they should be maintained.
Once that law is repealed, it is simply a signal that the Jamaican society has made the first step in legalising and accepting as 'normal' the gay lifestyle. The truthfulness of the foregoing is evident in the rhetoric of the gay lobby against the buggery law. For instance, in a letter published in the November 14, 2011 Gleaner, one gay-rights lobbyist, Brian-Paul Welsh, made plain: "I would never propose that repealing the [buggery] law would serve as a panacea [to having gays accessing health care]; in fact, it is merely the first step in the right direction for government in the creation of a supportive social environment."
Notice that, to this lobbyist, it matters not that in countries where homosexuality is legal (like in France) the HIV rates among gays are still alarmingly high, still growing, and out of control, despite their having access to preventative health care. But this lobbyist closes his eyes to the truth and still postulates the non sequitur viewpoint that repealing the buggery law is "the first step" in the society creating a "supportive environment" for gays. So, education and constant reminder of safe sex through the media is not the way to go, but repealing a law that would make no difference really if gays (just like in France) still ignore common sense and education about the proper health practices needed in a high-risk sexual behaviour.
But the above-quoted statement of diatribe from gay lobbyist Brian-Paul Welsh is not only ironic, suggestive, and serves as a warning, but, more important, it fully captures the essence of why the buggery law is so hated by the gay lobbyists. Why? Because they are not so much a hindrance to health care for gays (the facts speak eloquently against that reality elsewhere), but the buggery law is the society's last bastion against the outright invasion of the gay lifestyle. It is what spoils the party in the gay lifestyle making its first real successful step in Jamaica. That is why the buggery law has now become a prime target for the gay movement.
SYMBOLIC RED FLAG
Obviously, after realising the first successful step of removing this legal obstacle, the next step, after being successful at helping to repeal the buggery law, will be to insist on imposing the gay lifestyle as 'normal', and hence it should not even be considered as a subject of criticism. Thus, the freedom of expression of the majority, the freedom of religious expression, and the public expression of that belief will then be infringed by the 'over-protected' minority. This has been the pattern elsewhere. It is plain, and it's where the gay-rights movement is headed in Jamaica. But before the gay-lobby agenda can get to that stage, it must be successful at removing the buggery law. Hence, the buggery law has become the symbolic red flag in a game of who can capture and retain the flag so the opposing side loses the game. Thus the moral majority must fight long and hard to keep it, legally, with pen and voice (not with sticks and stones), for as long as we can. God help us in Jamaica as the spirit of Sodom and Gomorrah seeks to invade our land!