By Dr Lazarus Castang
Thanks, Jessica Joseph, for your response below my letter, Dr Lazarus Castang’s response to Colin Robinson
. After examining your response to my letter, it is apparent that, like Colin, you do not provide a defence of morality, or of homosexuality, or of the morality of homosexuality, or of any natural right to homosexual behaviours. The irrational compulsion to remove anal sex from the homosexual menu through a study of both gays and bisexuals is unsatisfactory. Anal sex is not an un-homosexual act because some gays abstain from it and many heterosexuals engage in it.
Dr Lazarus Castang is a licensed psychotherapist and an ordained SDA Minister of Religion. He holds a PhD in Old Testament, a Masters in Psychotherapy, and has completed studies in basic medical science. He has ministered to several communities in St Lucia, Barbados and the US and has provided therapy to individuals, couples and groups. He is a graduate of University of Southern Caribbean in Trinidad and Andrews University in Michigan. He has written two theological books and several articles on social relations. (email@example.com)
Whatever two men or two women sexually engage in, is homosexual, and whatever male-female sexually engage in is heterosexual. Similarity of sexual or erotic behaviours whether French kissing, or oral sex, or anal sex, does not denude or strip the acts of the homosexual or heterosexual derivation. The study you referenced does not demonstrate that most gays are anal-sex virgins; it only suggests a degree of present non-participation by some gays. Moreover, the presence of bisexuals in the sample confounds the results you are using for gays only.
Homosexual practice (whether French kissing, oral sex, masturbation, anal sex, oro-anal sex) is not unnatural or immoral because of anal sex or personal distaste, but because male is not a sexual complement of male anatomically, physiologically and psychologically. Homosexual practice crosses the boundary of male-female complementarity into the discomplementarity of same-sex pairing.
The homosexual practice is against our human nature, our ends and purposes. It is a procreative dead-end. Homosexuality is a parasite on heterosexuality for the perpetuity of the human race. If exclusive homosexual behaviour is universalised, humanity will become extinct in the next 100 years. With such potential, homosexual behaviour threatens the very existence of humanity whether partially or exclusively practiced. The conditional contention that not everyone will become/is a homosexual, though true, misses this logical conclusion and fails to see that homosexual behaviour can be cultivated without prior congenital tendency. Moreover, the push for homosexual pleasure to trump moral virtue is hedonistic.
The argument that equates sterility or barrenness to homosexuality, which is a biological dysfunction/disorder, and at the same time hurry to say that homosexuality is not a dysfunction/disorder seeks to burn the candle on both ends and ends up in a logical crash. In barrenness or sterility, the complementary physical apparatuses meant for reproduction or procreation may be partly absent, or dysfunctional, or non-functional. But in homosexuality the same or discomplementary physical apparatuses, though completely functional, are never reproductive. Two penises, or two vaginas, or a penis and an anus, or a mouth and a penis or vagina, or a mouth and an anus are not designed at all to procreate or perpetuate humanity.
If the sodomy law is religious bias/bigotry, then the argument to repeal it constitutes a homosexual bias and anti-religious bigotry. The “consenting adult” argument cannot be used to justify homosexual practice and not at the same time be used to justify consensual incest, polyamory, male polysexual behaviour and bestiality. The convenient homosexual need to remain silent on moral virtue and talk about protection of rights, freedom and privacy seeks to conceal the immorality of homosexual practice within these broad categories.
The name-dropping assertion that “respected medical community” and “international human rights community” have the enlightened opinion on what constitutes or determines morality is unenlightening. Human reason grounded in nature is a base for human law by social compact. Mere hedonistic pursuits cannot be the base of law or morality. If the experience of homosexual impulses derived from physiological causation factors makes homosexual practice natural and requires the repeal of sodomy laws, then the experience of pedosexual (pedophilic) impulses derived from physiological causation factors makes pedosexual practice natural and requires the repeal of pedophile laws.
Consideration of other factors in the legal and moral approval of pedophilia necessitates the same for homosexuality; else the approval of the latter constitutes an obvious bias and a case of arbitrary law. The repeal or retention of sodomy or pedophile laws cannot only be based on the experience of sexual impulses. There is a clear priority of formal embodied structures of human existence over impulses in adult-child pedophilic relationship, and man-man and woman-woman homosexual relationships.
A clear contradiction in your writing is in saying, “Many gay men do not like it (anal sex) and do not do it as there are many other options to choose from to express intimacy, love and affection toward their partner” and then later on turn around and say, “the highest group contracting HIV are heterosexual women and gay male bottoms respectively -- those in the recipient role.” Many gay men do not have anal sex but the highest group contracting HIV are heterosexual women and gay male bottoms respectively!
Your contradiction is in the claim that anal sex is un-homosexual because many gays don’t do it but gays are a respective highest group contracting HIV through their bottoms. So the HIV epidemic among gay men is through their bottoms. Therefore, since there is an HIV epidemic among Caribbean MSM, and gays are respective highest group contracting HIV through their male bottoms respectively, then by your own confession there has been an increase, not a decrease or absence of anal sex among gays. Your argument shows that you terrorize and detonate yourself completely. You are the only victim of your suicide bombing. Not even the study you referenced provides resuscitation and resurrection.
There is also clear logical incompatibility between your irresponsible claim that other people are responsible for the HIV rapid spread among gay men and your assertion that what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults is no business of the state or other citizens. By the same token, gay contraction of HIV is no business of the state or other citizens, or the public. Their consequent healthcare needs are no business of the state or healthcare-providing citizens.
The claim for absolute and autonomous practice of sexual freedom without social, cultural, legal and religious norms or restraints makes gay men completely responsible for the pathological consequences of their behaviour. After their bedroom contraction of HIV, the public cannot be blamed for their continued sex that yields the same HIV result for other gay partners in their bedroom. Nor should the public be blamed for their bedroom or for homosexual retreat from healthcare because of bedroom shame, or moral condemnation of their bedroom practice, or their fear of the knowledge of HIV contraction, or their vengeful and deliberate attempt to infect sex partners if they are infected.
If homosexuals like heterosexuals make their bed, then they choose to lie down in it. In other words, they should accept the consequences of their sexual behaviour without alleging that other people make them practice more unsafe homosexual behaviours or make them less proactive to seek testing or find treatment after contraction. Moreover, any effort to strip a terminally dreaded disease (HIV) of the stereotypical/stigmatised ways in which it can be caught or is perceived, is an uphill battle that will continue to wallow in failure and frustration, if personal responsibility for one’s sexual behaviour is obscured by overt or covert public accusation.
Accusing the public for the deficient healthcare of gays is only legitimate in places where their psychological well-being is seriously endangered and their physical security and safety are definitely threatened in their quest for healthcare. However, obstruction of healthcare, though cruel and inhumane, is not a complicit or implicit public promotion of risky homosexual behaviours. In fact, if such context exists, then the public opposition that is intended to dissuade homosexual behaviours is terribly misdirected to obstruct their healthcare. It should be clear to the Caribbean public that there is absolutely no moral or Christian virtue in rejoicing in gay suffering, no matter how the disease is contracted.
Finally, the (pro-)homosexual script which says that those who oppose gay behaviours drive the rapid spread of HIV among gays is a mirage that effectively denies their personal responsibility, promotes the pathology of moral agency among gays, and supports the HIV/AIDS epidemic among men having sex with men.